Emotions Flare After Immigration Law Is Blocked

By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD

PHOENIX — As the Arizona governor on Thursday formally appealed a federal judge’s ruling that prevented the most contested parts of the state’s immigration law from taking effect, a burst of protest and recrimination made clear the ruling had hardly soothed emotions in the state.

The new law technically went into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday, but major provisions of it, including one giving police officers a larger role in enforcing immigration violations, were suspended Wednesday by the court order.

Judge Susan R. Bolton of Federal District Court, ruling in a lawsuit brought by the Obama administration, said the provisions should be halted until there could be a trial on whether they would interfere with federal authority on immigration and subject legal residents to unwarranted scrutiny.

The parts of the law that were suspended called for police officers to check a person’s immigration status, when they were suspicious of it, while enforcing other laws and required immigrants to prove that they were authorized to be in the country.

The United States Marshals Service here said Judge Bolton received death threats on Thursday, as anger flamed unabated on both sides of the controversy and protesters took to the streets.

One prominent opponent of illegal immigration, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, who patrols metropolitan Phoenix and administers the jails, said he was continuing with his duties.

“It’s business as normal,” Sheriff Arpaio said as he announced the beginning of another of his controversial crime sweeps — which inevitably lead to the arrests of illegal immigrants on state smuggling charges and are unaffected by the court order.

About the same time Sheriff Arpaio made the remark, his deputies and the police a few miles away were busy arresting some 30 people who blocked downtown streets and one of his jails or were accused of refusing to follow police orders during a march by hundreds of people against the law.

“I’m here because the injunction is temporary and it can be overturned,” said Kirk Snow, 43, one of the protesters.

A rally is planned for Saturday by supporters of the law, including State Senator Russell Pearce, a Republican who sponsored it and who predicted that the injunction would be lifted.

Mayor Phil Gordon, a Democrat who opposed the new law, took it all in with a measure of resignation.

“They are trying to get on TV, both extremes,” he said. “Nothing is going to change until we revise the immigration system.”

But Congressional efforts to provide some legal status to the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the country and perhaps put in place a program to allow more immigrants in to work, appear stalled.

Overall crime is declining in the state, and the Obama administration, responding to calls from Republicans and members of his own party, is sending reinforcements to the border, including about 1,200 National Guard troops, the first of whom are expected to arrive in the coming weeks.

And several police agencies in Arizona already had agreements with the federal government, and training, to help enforce immigration law under certain conditions.

But Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican seeking election to a full term, has said the problems and costs associated with illegal immigration remain dire, and she pressed the point in asking the appeals court for a review of Judge Bolton’s ruling.

Her lawyers, asking the court to make the case a priority, said the law sought to “address the irreparable harm Arizona is suffering as a result of unchecked unlawful immigration.”

The law, they said, is “critical to address serious criminal, environmental problems Arizona has been suffering as a consequence of illegal immigration and the lack of effective enforcement activity by the federal government.”

Under the schedule proposed by the lawyers for the state, the court would hear oral arguments in September; a Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment and the federal government did not file an immediate response in court.

There was still some question about what effect the remaining sections of the law that Judge Bolton did not block might have.

For now, at least, the police will not be required to check the immigration status of people they suspect are illegal immigrants whom they stop or arrest for other offenses. Nor will immigrants without proper papers face state misdemeanor charges.

Those provisions of the law, said one advocate for immigrants, the Rev. Glenn B. Jenks, an Episcopal priest in Tempe who was formerly a lawyer, were the “teeth” that “are driving people out of the state,” as the law’s proponents intended.

But some church and labor leaders said they were concerned about several provisions Judge Bolton did not suspend.

Although the judge blocked a broad section of the law that would have made it a crime for an illegal immigrant to solicit work in Arizona, it is now a crime to stop a car in the street to pick up a day laborer.

Also, police officers were given new powers to impound vehicles used to transport illegal immigrants. While that provision appeared to be aimed at migrant smugglers, some advocates worried that the police would apply it to church groups and others transporting immigrants in vans.

The ruling, said the Rev. Trina Zelle, a Presbyterian minister in Arizona who is executive director of the Arizona Interfaith Alliance for Worker Justice, a labor advocacy group, “is a partial and brief respite, and until the law is completely struck down it will be subject to abuse.”

Randal C. Archibold reported from Phoenix. Julia Preston contributed reporting from New York, and Ana Facio Contreras in Phoenix.

Justice Dept. to sue Arizona over immigration law

By Jerry Markon

Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 6, 2010; 11:40 AM

The Justice Department has decided to file suit against Arizona on grounds that the state's new immigration law illegally intrudes on federal prerogatives, law enforcement sources said Monday.

The lawsuit, which three sources said could be filed as early as Tuesday, will invoke for its main argument the legal doctrine of "preemption," which is based on the Constitution's supremacy clause and says that federal law trumps state statutes. Justice Department officials believe that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility, the sources said.

A federal lawsuit will dramatically escalate the legal and political battle over the Arizona law, which gives police the power to question anyone if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal immigrant. The measure has drawn words of condemnation from President Obama and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and opposition from civil rights groups. It also has prompted at least five other lawsuits. Arizona officials have urged the Obama administration not to sue.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton first revealed last month that the Justice Department intended to sue Arizona, and department lawyers have been preparing their case, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the government has not announced its plans. The filing is expected to include declarations from other U.S. agencies saying that the Arizona law would place an undue burden on their ability to enforce immigration laws nationwide, because Arizona police are expected to refer so many illegal immigrants to federal authorities.

The preemption doctrine has been established in Supreme Court decisions, and some legal experts have said such a federal argument likely would persuade a judge to declare the law unconstitutional.

But lawyers who helped draft the Arizona legislation have expressed doubt that a preemption argument would prevail. The law, signed by Gov. Jan Brewer (R) in April, is scheduled to take effect later this month.

http://bit.ly/9PAKiu

Obama To Send 1,200 Troops To U.S.-Mexico Border

President Obama is sending up to 1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border. Melissa Block talks to NPR's Ted Robbins about the move, which comes as Arizona prepares to implement its tough new immigration law.

MELISSA BLOCK, host:

From NPR News, this is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. I'm Melissa Block.

There were a couple of moves on border security from the White House late today. President Obama is sending up to 1,200 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico. He's also requesting an additional $500 million for border security, including the hiring of more federal agents.

NPR's Ted Robbins joins us from Tucson.

And Ted, let's talk first about these steps the president is taking. What will they do?

TED ROBBINS: Well, Melissa, as you mentioned, troops up to 1,200 will come to the border and they'll essentially serve as support for the Border Patrol. So far, the plan seems to be similar to what happened four years ago under Operation Jump Start. Soldiers made themselves visible as deterrents to would-be crossers. They did surveillance, drove vehicles, did office and motor pool support to free up border agents.

They won't be performing law enforcement activities. The half-billion dollars that you mentioned for border security is a supplemental budget request. And that's a big change from the current budget, which did not have additional funding for the Border Patrol. The Border Patrol, I'm told, will now hire more agents and buy more equipment.

BLOCK: And, Ted, of course, these moves by the White House come after a period of intense discussion and disagreement about border security and immigration.

ROBBINS: Yeah. I think you can trace this particular move back to one triggering event on March 27th. That's when rancher Rob Krentz was killed near the border in Southeastern Arizona on his land. Krentz's killer hasn't been caught yet, but the presumption has been that he was killed by a smuggler.

So politicians in both parties began calling for troops. Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords who represents the area, she worked with the White House and with ranchers. She was the first to announce today's move. Republican Senators John Kyl and John McCain have also been calling for troops, though a lot more than the - than up to 1,200 that were announced today.

And in fact, President Obama met with Republican lawmakers this morning to discuss immigration, and then this afternoon, he made this announcement.

BLOCK: And, Ted, you're there in Arizona, which has become the flashpoint, really, for this debate over immigration and border security. What reaction have you heard today to the president's decision?

ROBBINS: I've heard a lot of people taking credit for this in Washington, as I just mentioned, and in Arizona where Attorney General Terry Goddard, who is running for governor is saying that he helped bring it about. Although Republican Governor Jan Brewer, who is also running, says she didn't hear about the troops until an Associated Press reporter called her for a reaction.

Now, a month ago, of course, the governor - Governor Brewer signed into law the state law in Arizona cracking down on illegal immigrants, which has voter support but it's been criticized by the administration.

On the other side, some supporters of immigration reform are criticizing this announcement. They're saying it's more of the same thing we've seen for 15 years, and that militarizing the border more will do nothing to solve the underlying problems, which led to the current situation - the pull of jobs and family in the U.S., and the demand for drugs in the U.S.

BLOCK: You mentioned an earlier operation back in 2006, when President George W. Bush sent National Guard troops to the border. Did that help?

ROBBINS: It did, Melissa. It did in the sense that apprehensions along the border dropped when the guard troops came for Operation Jump Start. They stayed in place about a year and a half until more borer patrol agents could be hired and trained, and that was also the period during which the fence was built. Apprehensions have been down since the recession started; most people think because of that.

But recently, there have been statistics showing there has been a small increase in the illegal border apprehensions since last October in Arizona.

BLOCK: Okay. NPR's Ted Robbins in Tucson.

Ted, thanks very much.

ROBBINS: My pleasure.

http://tinyurl.com/32su7oa

Undocumented student's arrest called part of 'civil rights disaster'

Atlanta, Georgia (CNN) -- Staring at the throngs of media representatives who came out to hear and see her Friday, Jessica Colotl took another step into the fight for her future.

The undocumented student from Mexico whose case has become a lightning rod in the immigration debate had been released on $2,500 bond just a couple hours earlier. The 21-year-old student at Kennesaw State University in Georgia surrendered Friday morning to authorities in response to a warrant for her arrest issued Wednesday night by the Cobb County Sheriff's Office.

Standing nervously before the crowd, Colotl fought back tears when people cheered for her. The media bombarded her with questions as she tried to give voice to her struggle.

Just a week earlier, she'd been released from a deportation facility in Alabama after being stopped in March for a minor traffic violation.

"If I were to be deported, I'd have to start all over again," she said. "I'm hoping for the best."

The sheriff's office said she gave a false address when stopped for that violation, a felony charge that her attorney denies.

A spotlight has been trained on Arizona since Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law a bill that requires law enforcement officials to seek proof of legal U.S. residency from anyone whom they have stopped on suspicion of having violated the law.

But advocates working with Colotl point out that a little-understood program already gives local authorities in many states the latitude to act as immigration officials -- a right that is often abused, they say.

"The future of Arizona already exists in Cobb County and Gwinnett County [also in Georgia]," said Jerry Gonzalez, executive director of the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials.

Near him were other Colotl supporters, some holding signs reading "Education not deportation."

Under the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 287(g) program, state and local law enforcement can partner with the federal agency to gain some immigration enforcement authority in their own jurisdictions. If they conclude that someone is in the country illegally, they can turn that person over to ICE. Last year, a change to the partnership program prioritized the detention and arrest of those who have allegedly committed crimes.

The Cobb County Sheriff's Office is one of 71 law enforcement agencies in 26 states that have entered into this partnership program, according to the ICE website.

Labeling the program a "civil rights disaster," Mary Bauer, legal director of the Southern Poverty Law Center, said it "leads to racial profiling, distracts police from looking for real criminals and destroys families."

The American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia called Friday for an end to the program.

"Jessica's case is yet another outrageous example of the unaccountable local enforcement of immigration laws in Cobb County gone awry," said Azadeh Shahshahani, ACLU of Georgia's national security/immigrants' rights project director.

Colotl's legal problems started in late March when her car was stopped on the Kennesaw State campus. Born in Mexico but living in the United States since she was 11, she could not produce a driver's license, so she handed over as identification an expired passport from Mexico.

She was arrested the next day and turned over to immigration officials. She spent more than a month in the Etowah Detention Center in Alabama.

Friends came out in force and marched on campus in her defense. Earlier this month, she was released, and her deportation was deferred for a year, which will allow her to finish her studies. She hasn't returned to classes yet, but looks forward to earning her degree.

"I'm just trying to live the American dream and finish my education," she said.

Calling Colotl "a symbol of what's wrong with the immigration system," immigration attorney Charles Kuck thanked ICE for allowing his client to stay in the country for a year to finish her studies. He then set out to educate people about the challenges facing Colotl, providing a reason why she did not have a license.

Jessica can't start the process to become a U.S. citizen because she's not allowed to," he said. "If Jessica could obtain a license, she would have."

In a statement Wednesday night, Cobb County Sheriff Neil Warren said, "Ms. Colotl knew that she was in the United States without authority to be here and voluntarily chose to operate a vehicle without a driver's license, which is a violation of Georgia law. She has further complicated her situation with her blatant disregard for Georgia law by giving false information."

As for the use of the ICE program, he said, "I value any tool that helps me enforce the law and remove violators from our community."

But the band of lawyers and advocates who rallied around Colotl say Cobb County is abusing its power. In a joint statement Thursday night, they voiced outrage over Colotl's treatment and suggested that the felony charge is trumped-up.

"It is obvious from all the documents that I've seen that she has done nothing wrong and has given her proper address to Cobb County and immigration officials," said Chris Taylor, Colotl's criminal attorney. "There has been no crime committed."

The car's registration simply reflected her old address, Taylor said in an interview, and she provided her new address when she was taken into custody. Taylor said he has the documents to prove this and looks forward to clearing her name.

In front of the crowd that gathered Friday, he said of his client, "She has not failed us. We have failed her. The system has failed her."

The Cobb Immigrant Alliance likened the actions of officials to "schoolyard bullying." Gonzalez, of the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, called the sheriff "Wild-West Warren," saying he "has abused his authority in this case. His actions clearly demonstrate the problems that occur when local law officers are granted authority to enforce immigration laws."

"Sheriff Warren has embarked on a witch hunt, wasting money and county resources for political gain," said Adelina Nicholls of the Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights. "This is not about public safety."

http://bit.ly/96sRZL

Obama's aunt given OK to stay in United States

President Barack Obama's paternal aunt, Zeituni Onyango, is shown leaving federal immigration court at the John F. Kennedy building in downtown Boston this February. (Globe Staff/Photo Jonathan Wiggs)

By Maria Sacchetti, Globe Staff

A Boston immigration judge has granted asylum to President Barack Obama's aunt, Zeituni Onyango, clearing the way for her to stay in the United States and possibly to become a US citizen, her lawyers said today.

Immigration Judge Leonard I. Shapiro, after hearing closed-door testimony from the Kenyan native in February, granted her plea on Friday. Reached by telephone, Onyango referred questions to her lawyers.

"I'm tired," said Onyango, whose case caused a stir when it was revealed she had been living illegally in a South Boston public housing complex.

In Cleveland, Onyango's lawyers Margaret Wong and Scott Bratton said that now Onyango will be allowed to receive a work permit, a Social Security number, and a driver's license or state identification card. She must wait for one year to apply for legal permanent residency, or a green card, and five years to apply for US citizenship.

Onyango, who turns 58 this month, is the half-sister of Obama's late father, and she was featured in Obama's memoir, "Dreams from My Father." She had applied for political asylum in 2002, but a judge rejected her application in 2004 and told her to leave the country.

Instead, she lived quietly in the public housing project until it was revealed shortly before the 2008 election that she was here illegally. She quickly became a lightning rod in the national debate over illegal immigration.

After the publicity, she fled to Cleveland, hired Wong, and petitioned immigration judge to allow her to stay in the United States.

Shapiro agreed to reopen Onyango's case in December 2008.

In February, Wong said Onyango would testify that she should stay in this country because she suffers health problems and because she feared that she would become the target of tribal violence if she were forced to return to her homeland. Onyango suffers from Guillain-Barre syndrome, an autoimmune disorder.

During that hearing, Shapiro heard five hours of testimony by Onyango and two physicians.

Timeline: Marriage to U.S. Citizen Application For U.S. Legal Permanent Resident

• Foreign national marries U.S. citizen (take lots of photos at your wedding and whenever you both are doing anything interesting with family and friends)
• Meeting in our office
• Begin collecting supporting documents
• We set you up in our online case management system and e-mail you with login instructions
• You log into the system and fill out the questionnaire
• Your answers are plugged into the adjustment of status forms

G-325A (x2) – Biographic Information

I-130 – Petition for Alien Relative

I-131 – Application for Travel Document

I-485 – Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status

I-765 – Application for Employment Authorization

I-864 – Affidavit of Support

• Once all forms are completed, you may either print them out on your end, sign them, and mail them to our office, or come by our office to sign the forms.
• We file your application for adjustment of status with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
• Approximately 2 weeks after filing, USCIS sends out your receipt notice.
• In approximately 3-4 weeks, USCIS will mail your notice of appointment at an Application Support Center for the electronic capture of your biometrics.
• You should receive your Employment Authorization Document (“E.A.D.”, commonly known as a work permit) and Advance Parole between 60 and 90 days from your filing date.
• You’ll receive your interview notice about 5-6 weeks before your interview. We will accompany you on your interview. Interviews are conducted in half-hour time slots. Your adjustment of status application will be approved at interview if everything goes well. The officer could give you a request for more documentation or schedule a second interview with a 2 hour time slot.
• If the officer believes there is fraud involved, the case will be referred to the Fraud Detection National Security (FDNS) unit.

NOTE: All processing times are an estimate and change constantly. Please call our office for current processing times. (415) 938-6689

New York to Ease Pardons for Convictions of Immigrants

By Danny Hakim and Nina Bernstein

ALBANY — Gov. David A. Paterson announced on Monday that the state would accelerate consideration and granting of pardons to legal immigrants for old or minor criminal convictions, in an effort to prevent them from being deported.

The move sets up a confrontation between the governor and federal immigration officials, who have taken more aggressive action to increase deportations in recent years. Immigration lawyers on both sides called the step extraordinary and said it could ultimately affect thousands of people in New York.

“Some of our immigration laws, particularly with respect to deportation, are embarrassingly and wrongly inflexible,” Mr. Paterson said in a speech on Monday at an annual gathering of the state’s top judges. “In New York we believe in renewal,” he added. “In New York, we believe in rehabilitation.”

Mr. Paterson is establishing a special five-member state panel to review the cases; while few such cases are currently pending, the administration expects an influx of hundreds of new pardon applications by the end of the year.

The move thrusts the governor into the middle of the country’s immigration debate and could give new hope to legal immigrants facing deportation.

Mr. Paterson said the new policy was in the works weeks before Arizona enacted a law late last month to give the police there broad authority to question people about their immigration status. It was spurred in part by his pardon in March of Qing Hong Wu, a 29-year-old information technology executive who The New York Times reported had been threatened with deportation because he participated in a series of muggings as a 14-year-old. He had not lived in his native China since he was 5.

“We just feel that some of these charges are very minor in nature and some of these conversations go back beyond a decade for people who’ve demonstrated that they’ve lived productive lives in the interim,” Mr. Paterson said. “We’re separating these cases from ones where there are egregious crimes.”

The White House referred calls to the Department of Homeland Security, which would not comment directly on the governor’s plan.

“D.H.S. continues to focus on smart, effective immigration enforcement that prioritizes criminal aliens who present the greatest risk to the security of our communities,” Matt Chandler, a spokesman for the agency, said. “At the same time, we are applying common sense and using discretion on a case-by-case basis to ensure that our enforcement is meeting our priorities.”

Mr. Paterson does not need legislative approval to undertake the new policy. Federal immigration laws enacted in 1996 greatly expanded the categories of legal immigrants subject to mandatory deportation as “aggravated felons,” including people who had pleaded guilty to misdemeanor drug possession.

For years after the laws’ passage, immigration authorities had neither the resources nor the political will to track down or detain legal permanent residents with relatively minor convictions. Because of that, many people years ago pleaded guilty to criminal charges in exchange for probation or no jail time, without having been advised by their lawyers that the plea made them subject to deportation.

Now, however, stepped-up enforcement, huge new criminal databases and expanded use of detention are resulting in deportation proceedings against more people with old convictions, while immigration judges have no discretion to consider their individual cases.

Only a governor’s pardon can prevent deportation in such cases, even when the legal immigrant is married to a United States citizen and has citizen children.

“This is huge,” said Bryan Lonegan, a veteran immigration lawyer who is an expert on the immigration consequences of criminal convictions. “So many legal permanent residents are being arrested and detained based on trivial convictions — the guy being deported for swiping a MetroCard when he fell on hard times, people with minor marijuana convictions, people who shoplifted in a moment of weakness,” he added.

Nationally, more than 97,000 noncitizens are deported annually based on criminal convictions, rather than lack of lawful immigration status, and the great majority are believed to be legal permanent residents, said Nancy Morawetz, who teaches law at New York University and directs the N.Y.U. Immigrant Rights Clinic. She estimates that about 10 percent are from New York.

Thousands of other New Yorkers with green cards — like other legal immigrants elsewhere — are now afraid to travel or apply for citizenship for fear that they will be detained and deported based on an old conviction, she said.

But while immigrant advocates were quick to embrace Mr. Paterson’s initiative, supporters of tougher immigration enforcement sounded a different note.

“There are people out there, maybe the governor included, who don’t want to deport anybody, even people who have committed crimes,” said Jan Ting, a professor at Temple University Law School, and a former assistant immigration commissioner. “I understand the impulse, but it’s an impulse that leads to open borders.”

Nationally, much of the debate about immigration has focused on those who are here illegally. But the governor’s proposal underscores the degree to which lawful permanent residents also have been greatly affected by toughened enforcement measures.

There is scant precedent for the policy Mr. Paterson is enacting. Among the unanswered questions, people on both sides said, is how Congress and the Board of Immigration Appeals will react to the governor’s effort.

In a more limited step, in the 15 months after the 1996 law was enacted, the Georgia Board of Pardons and Parole granted 138 pardons to permanent residents who had suddenly faced deportation retroactively.

But much has changed since then; most significantly, the federal government has become more aggressive, in practice, in seeking deportations.

And Mr. Paterson is essentially issuing a broad invitation for members of a large class of people with criminal convictions to come forward and seek pardons.

The governor is drawing on existing state employees to serve on the five-member Special Immigration Board of Pardons. Review of individual cases is expected to take weeks.

The governor said he hoped his new policy could “set an example for how other states might consider softening the blow that people who get caught up in this web of the national immigration laws are experiencing.”

Danny Hakim reported from Albany, and Nina Bernstein from New York. Jeremy W. Peters contributed reporting from Albany.

Arizona tears open immigration debate

By Andy Barr

As soon as Arizona enacted the toughest anti-immigration law in the country last week, advocates on both sides voiced hope that the new law would move the topic to the center of national debate.

They got their wish.

The national reaction to the bill was instantaneous and loud and has continued this week, taking top billing on cable talk shows, local news programs and everything between.

To supporters, it’s about time someone took an actual step to curb the flow of illegal immigrants that tax southwestern economies and state services, as well as the horrifying drug trafficking and violence that has cost the lives of thousands of Mexicans and Americans along the border.

For opponents of the bill, it is a draconian and racist measure that will lead to roundups and profiling of Latinos.

As protesters swarmed the Arizona state capital over the weekend, national figures plotted their strategy to deal with the law that may already be providing inspiration for other communities.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano –who herself punted on immigration as governor of Arizona – called the new law “misguided” during an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

“That one is a misguided law,” she said. “It's not a good law enforcement law. It's not a good law in any number of reasons. But beyond that, what it illustrates is that other states now will feel compelled to do things. And you will have this patchwork of laws where we need a federal immigration system that meets our security needs, that recognizes where we need to go in this 21st century and gives us a better framework on which to stand.”

Napolitano’s comments echoed President Barack Obama’s in his criticism of the bill prior to its signing on Friday.

But that language hasn’t been enough for Democratic Hispanic leaders, who blame the federal government’s inaction for fostering the environment that led to the bill.

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) urged the president during a rally on Sunday to fight the “unjust and racist law.”

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) meanwhile made clear to Obama that after supporting his candidacy during the presidential campaign, Hispanics need him to step up on immigration reform.

“Our message today is: ‘Mr. President we listened, and we came out in record massive numbers to support you,’” Gutierrez said Sunday. “We need you to support us today.”

The red hot debate has even prompted another Democratic candidate, civil rights advocate Randy Parraz, to join the Senate race.

A spokeswoman for Parraz, who will compete with Tucson City Councilman Rodney Glassman for the nomination, said the law was the catalyst for him to enter the race. “For many of us, our spirit has become broken. People don't have the will to take the lead and challenge these folks, so we're relying on Randy to do it,” said spokeswoman Cristina Martinez.

Liberals outside of the Hispanic community are also pushing for national action.

The Rev. Al Sharpton said Sunday that he is organizing a “freedom walkers” march on Arizona, taking a page from the playbook of civil rights protestors in the 1960s.

“We will go to Arizona when this bill goes into effect and walk the streets with people who refuse to give identification and force arrest,” Sharpton said during a speech in New York.

Sharpton said Monday on MSNBC that the state’s new approach immigration enforcement comes down to racial profiling.

“Let’s face it, when they are saying there's enormous amount of people coming across the border from Mexico, they are saying, therefore, we're going to stop people who look like Mexicans to check their identification, which is to profile people based on race,” Sharpton said, appearing alongside Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a supporter of the law. “We cannot have laws based on race.”

http://ow.ly/1DgXw

Statement of ABA President Lamm Re: Supreme Court Ruling in Padilla v. Kentucky

Statement of ABA President Lamm Re: Supreme Court Ruling in Padilla v. Kentucky

In Shadow of Health Care Vote, Immigrant Advocates Keep Pushing for Change

By JULIA PRESTON

WASHINGTON — Immigrant advocates, frustrated with President Obama’s lack of progress on legislation to overhaul the immigration system, called one month ago for a march in Washington that they said would display the strength of their numbers and would give the president the push he needed to get the debate rolling in Congress.

That was then.

In the space of a few weeks, with the acrimonious health care debate eclipsing other issues in Washington, the results advocates can expect from the scheduled rally of tens of thousands of their supporters on the Mall here on Sunday appear to have diminished. Now the question for advocates, who planned their go-for-broke mobilization as a catalyst to jump-start a bill in Congress, is whether it will at least help to keep a conversation about immigration going in Washington between now and the November elections.

As luck would have it, the immigration rally will not even be the main event here on Sunday, when most of the nation’s attention will be on the crucial health care vote in the House of Representatives.

But advocates say the mobilization has already achieved results. In large part because of their prodding, President Obama held meetings last week with groups engaged in the immigration issue. On Thursday, Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, and Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, unveiled a blueprint for a bill that would offer a path to legal status for an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants, and also included new provisions for expanded workplace and border enforcement.

Mr. Obama immediately embraced the blueprint. But after repeated promises last year that he would move an immigration bill in early 2010, the president scaled back last week, saying only that he would work to “forge a bipartisan consensus” this year. And while advocates are insisting that Mr. Obama must lead the way, he is throwing it back to them, calling on immigration groups to help round up at least one other Republican sponsor for the legislation put forth by Mr. Schumer and Mr. Graham.

On top of the difficulties any bill to overhaul immigration would confront with unemployment near 10 percent, the near-term obstacles became clear on Friday when Mr. Graham pointedly reiterated a warning that an immigration bill would be “the first casualty” if Democrats adopt health care legislation by an expedited process that circumvents Republican votes.

“If the health care bill goes through this weekend, that will, in my view, pretty much kill any chance of immigration reform passing the Senate this year,” Mr. Graham said.

Still, the rally allows advocates a chance to show a coalition that has broadened since popular opposition roundly defeated a Bush administration immigration proposal in 2007. Evangelical Christian churches have joined the effort, led by the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, the largest group of Latino evangelicals, and by the National Association of Evangelicals, which represents 450,000 churches nationwide.

African-American organizations, which in 2007 were skeptical, fearing that immigrants could pose competition to black workers, are more fully on board, and Benjamin T. Jealous, president of the N.A.A.C.P., is a scheduled speaker. While the A.F.L.-C.I.O. did not support the 2007 overhaul proposal, this year organized labor has united. Gay and lesbian groups, which had not been active on the issue, are now involved.

But business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which strongly backed the 2007 legislation, are less enthusiastic this year and will stay away Sunday. Mr. Schumer and Mr. Graham have said that the rift between business and labor over their proposal will be one of the hardest to bridge. As soon as their blueprint was released, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. blasted provisions for a temporary guest worker program to handle future immigration of blue-collar laborers.

Immigrant groups are also coming to protest deportations and immigration enforcement at workplaces that they say continue to affect immigrant communities. Federal agents executing an arrest warrant at two restaurants in Maryland detained more than 20 immigrants on March 11, the day the immigration groups were meeting with Mr. Obama.

Some advocates met Friday with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to criticize the enforcement. In an interview later Friday, Ms. Napolitano said the administration’s strategy would continue unchanged, with the emphasis on capturing and deporting immigrants who have committed crimes.

Organizers of the march said on Saturday that their goal was to persuade Mr. Obama to take up immigration legislation once the smoke has cleared from the health care debate.

“We are trying to send a strong message that when health care is past us, this is the issue that needs to be up at bat,” said Angela Maria Kelley of the Center for American Progress. “We’ve been in the bullpen for a long time, and now we want to show the strength of the team and the power of the issue.”

But even if the rally is a success, its organizers may face hard decisions about how to manage the expectations of their followers in a political season when the prospects in Congress for immigration have dimmed.

...and now, the Onion's take:

http://onion.com/tEnD3

Virtual U.S.-Mexico Border Fence At A Virtual End

http://bit.ly/akmxTc

Is President Obama Doing Enough to Move Immigration Reform?

Is President Obama Doing Enough to Move Immigration Reform?

Posted using ShareThis

Saugerties siblings facing deportation get a reprieve | recordonline.com

Saugerties siblings facing deportation get a reprieve | recordonline.com

Posted using ShareThis

March Visa Bulletin

http://bit.ly/bk0poh

Undocumented Immigrants and Health Care: A Hard Choice for a Wife and Mother

Norma Angelica, who asked that her face not be shown, and her daughter Nicole. (Photo: Valeria Fernández)

PHOENIX, Arizona — Living as an undocumented immigrant in Arizona sometimes means making difficult choices.

Norma Angelica, an undocumented migrant who asked that her last name be withheld, knows this firsthand. She faces one of those life-changing decisions – should she stay in Arizona, where her four children were born, or should she go back to Mexico and care for her ailing husband?

Tragedy struck Norma’s family at a vulnerable time.

It began when her husband Martin, 43, had a stroke. He had suffered from high blood pressure all his life, but lately he’d been working more as a landscaper, trying to save money. He was sick with the flu, and one day Norma found him on the floor, paralyzed.

On January 5, Martin was admitted to the Maricopa Medical Center, one of the public hospitals that care for uninsured and low-income residents in central Phoenix.

“They told me the worst: that he could die, or he could stay in a vegetative state,” said Norma, also 43. “They told me to prepare myself.”

But Martin stabilized and regained consciousness. That’s when his wife found out that the hospital could no longer care for him. They told her arrangements would have to be made to send him back to his native Mexico.

“Because he doesn’t have documents and he’s not a citizen, they can’t treat him here,” she said. “Mexico has to take care for him, I’ve been told, because he’s from Mexico.”

Norma is also worried about Martin Jr., their 7-year-old son, who suffers from a birth defect known as spina bifida. It’s a type of neural tube defect that affects the brain and spine, causing paralysis and learning disabilities. Martin Jr. needs constant care and weekly visits to a variety of medical experts including neurologists and orthopedists.

“I feel desperate, in part for him and in part for my son. I don’t want my husband to have to go to Mexico. And I don’t want to bring my son to Mexico,” she said.

Norma and Martin are not legally married, but she considers herself his wife after eight years of living together. They have four children together, all of them born in the U.S.; the oldest is 11, the youngest is a three month old infant.

Social workers at Maricopa Medical Center are working with the family to find alternatives, said spokesman Michael Murphy.

“It’s a very difficult and painful situation,” said Murphy. “We are trying to work on a solution with her.”

Murphy said that Martin will need long term care 24/7 and the hospital is not set up for that type of care. Also, because he doesn’t qualify for health insurance, it’s hard to find a facility that would admit him, he added.

“It’s expensive care, that’s why it’s such a difficult, awful situation,” Murphy said. Sending him back to a hospital in Mexico is one of the options they are contemplating, he acknowledged. But he didn’t know how soon they’ll come to a decision.

The type of treatment that Martin needs is expensive. Norma said that the artificial breathing equipment alone could cost up to $800 per day and requires a $20,000 deposit to rent it. There could be other expenses: for example, if her husband needs to be taken to the emergency room again. These would be difficult costs for her to bear since she has practically no savings.

As the hospital looks for alternatives, Norma weighs her options. When she met with authorities at the Mexican Consulate in Phoenix, they told her the choices are limited. They suggested that the best one would be work with the hospital to arrange Martin’s transfer to a medical facility closer to his relatives in Cuernavaca, Mexico.

Martin’s case is not uncommon. When an undocumented immigrant needs emergency care, hospitals in Arizona provide it because it is required under federal law.

But because undocumented immigrants don’t qualify for the state’s subsidized insurance and many employers don’t provide health coverage, the only alternative is to get help from a charity or pay for treatment in a long-term facility.

Hospitals like the Maricopa Medical Center often make arrangements for the patient to be sent to his or her country of origin.

At times, Norma thinks that going to Mexico may be the answer. But her thoughts go back to her son Martin Jr.

“It’s going to be very expensive for me to take care of my child if I go to Mexico,” she said. “What if I have to take him to the emergency room?”

She wishes she could talk to her husband about these things, that she could consult with him at such a difficult time.

He was afraid for a long time that if he were to get sick he might get deported, she said. He feared the laws passed against undocumented immigrants in Arizona and the presence of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whose deputies arrest undocumented immigrants.

He was especially concerned about a new law that took effect in November. The bill requires states employees to report undocumented immigrants that request public benefits, but it doesn’t apply to emergency services.

“U.S. politics are to blame for this. Because they’re really putting a lot of roadblocks on us,” she said. “If you are not a citizen you can’t do this and that. If you don’t have documents you can’t come out into the light.”

She’s been working all her life, and paying taxes she can’t claim, she said. She came from the Mexican state of Guerrero in 1977.

“I’ve never asked for anyone to give me anything for free,” Norma said.

Martin is awake now and he communicates with his wife through hand gestures.

“I don’t want to tell him what’s happening,” she said. She has also been at a loss of words to explain it to their children.

A week ago she asked him if he would like to go back to Mexico and he said yes.

Just a few days ago she asked again. And the answer was no.

“I want him to stay here. I wish someone would help me so he’ll stay here. It’s for my children, for nothing else but them. They’re the ones that will suffer,” she said. “It’s very sad for me because I wish we could all stay together.”

http://bit.ly/9NgZit

For Haitians in the U.S. Illegally, Some Help

Stecy Antoine, left, and Reina Boaz, center, work with a Haitian woman at a free legal clinic in New York on Thursday.

By KIRK SEMPLE

Published: January 29, 2010

Two years ago, at age 17, Stephanie Germain arrived in New York from Haiti, overstayed her tourist visa and slipped into the parallel universe of the illegal immigrant. While she managed to learn English, graduate from high school and enroll in Queensborough Community College, her immigration status ensured that she would have to live largely out of the government’s view.

On Thursday, however, she took her first tentative steps out of the shadows, attending a free legal clinic concerning the special immigration status the Obama administration has offered to Haitians living illegally in the United States.

The new designation, called temporary protected status and announced on Jan. 15, three days after the earthquake in Haiti, protects recipients from deportation for 18 months and allows them to work. The status is offered from time to time to immigrants who are unable to return safely to their home countries because of armed conflict or natural disasters.

Ms. Germain, who has been living with her godfather in Richmond Hill, Queens, and receiving financial support from her parents back in Port-au-Prince, viewed the opportunity as nothing less than a release, albeit temporary, from a kind of imprisonment. “This allows me to live!” she exclaimed happily. “I can work, I can take care of myself, I can go to school.”

The government has estimated that the designation could cover at least 100,000 Haitians believed to be living in the United States illegally, in addition to about 30,000 Haitians who have already been ordered deported.

Legal organizations are organizing free, confidential clinics around the country to help Haitians understand the details of the designation and how to qualify for it. On Friday, Gov. David A. Paterson and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced the creation of the New York Haitian Earthquake Family Resource Center, which will provide support services. And the city will hold a clinic on applying for the special status on Saturday at Medgar Evers College in Brooklyn.

The legal clinic on Thursday, sponsored by the City Bar Justice Center and the New York chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, was the largest in the city since the earthquake.

For three hours, dozens of Haitian immigrants filed through the grand foyer of the New York City Bar building in Midtown Manhattan, and up to two large conference rooms. There, more than 180 volunteer lawyers, paralegals and interpreters explained the new designation — in English, French and Creole — and helped fill out applications.

In all, 83 people came seeking help, a lower turnout than expected. Participants wondered whether some immigrants stayed away out of fear that the promise of confidentiality was not airtight; because of the cost of applying (as much as $470), or because of the location, a long commute from the densest concentrations of Haitians in Brooklyn and Queens.

“That was a big, open question for us, whether people would come to this site,” said Lynn Kelly, executive director of the Justice Center. But organizers decided that the Midtown location was most convenient to the greatest number of volunteer lawyers, she said.

Still, many clients who came seemed relieved, even exhilarated, to begin the process. Some said the new status would allow them to find legal work and help support relatives in Haiti. Others said they hoped to apply for government financial aid for college.

Nadia Exantus, 34, said she had been in the United States illegally since 2006, when she had to leave Port-au-Prince because she could not support her family. She left her two children with an aunt, flew to Mexico, and sneaked across the United States border on foot. Detained, then released, by immigration officials, she made her way to New York.

She has since worked as a baby sitter and a hair braider, and received financial help from a brother in New York. Meanwhile, the aunt caring for her children died in the earthquake.

Ms. Exantus said she hoped the new status would give her legal footing to bring the children, now 4 and 6, to the United States. “I’m living on hope,” she said.

http://bit.ly/ckvkD5

A Special Visa Program Benefits Abused Illegal Immigrants

By KATHERINE ELLISON

Published: January 8, 2010

She was 14 when her mother smuggled her into Los Angeles. She met her future husband, a legal resident, two years later.

A Guatemalan immigrant now has legal United States residency after helping the authorities prosecute her husband for abuse. She asked that her identity be withheld for fear of retaliation.

He had all the cards, and played them cruelly, as she recalls. He would not let her go to school or work, dragged his feet on supporting her citizenship request, and called her fat and ugly after she became pregnant.

She endured it all — until she caught him romancing a 13-year-old girl from their church choir. When she complained, he beat her bloody, tried to rape her, and fled, with the girl, to Arizona, she said in an affidavit that is now part of federal immigration records.

Today, he is in prison, and she is caring for her children in San Francisco, with a driver’s license and a legal job baby-sitting. Her legal status came about through what is known as a U visa — a humanitarian “island of niceness,” as one advocate called it, in a sea of restrictive United States immigration laws.

Victims of domestic violence are often deeply reluctant to press charges, fearing retaliation or simply hoping their abusers will change. The risk of deportation only escalates the aversion to go to the police. That is a main reason that Congress passed legislation in 2000, creating the U visa. It allows immigrants who have endured substantial mental or physical abuse and who cooperate with law enforcement officials to work legally and stay in the United States for up to four years while applying for permanent residence.

After nearly a decade of delays, federal officials began allowing the visas en masse only early last year, after sustained efforts from immigrant rights groups, particularly several based in Oakland and San Francisco. The pace of approvals has since stepped up, as has the controversy, with both defense lawyers and groups opposed to immigration contending that the process invites scams.

For millions of immigrants and their supporters, however, the program is truly an island of niceness, as Catherine Ward-Seitz, the regional immigration coordinator for Bay Area Legal Aid in San Francisco, put it. With a soured economy encouraging hostility at worst and apathy at best toward illegal immigrants, the U visas are a bittersweet consolation prize.

In a compassionate twist on the idea that felons should be imprisoned, victims who can show that guns (or knives or fists) were used against them can be released from the fear of deportation.

While victims of several specified crimes are eligible, at least three-fourths of the applicants for U visas to date, like the Guatemalan baby sitter, who asked that her name not be used for fear of retaliation from her spouse, say they have suffered domestic violence, said Chris Rhatigan, a spokeswoman for the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. Immigration lawyers said this was largely because of the prevalence of domestic violence in general.

Ending impunity in cases of domestic violence makes whole communities safer, proponents say.

“These are disclosure-driven crimes, meaning people have to come forth and report them; there’s no gunshot to bring it to our attention,” said Lt. Kevin Wiley, commander of the Oakland Police Department’s special victims unit, which certified 153 U visas last year.

“It’s all about building trust,” Lieutenant Wiley said, adding that police certification of the visas was a powerful tool in creating bonds among wary residents who have long been the silent victims of a range of crimes, like the robberies of illegal immigrants known on the streets as “amigo checkings.”

What is more, Lieutenant Wiley said, the police often discover that domestic violence offenders have multiple victims.

Congress approved an annual limit of 10,000 U visas. Yet the regulations that would put the law in force were not made final by the Department of Homeland Security until September 2007.

A few dozen U visas were approved in 2008. Then the pace increased. In the fiscal year ending last September, immigration officials approved 5,825. Another 2,244 were approved in October and November. More than 10,000 applications are pending.

Ms. Rhatigan said the long delay resulted mostly from the complexity of the new rules, although some immigration advocates say the change of administrations in Washington played a part.

Lawyers defending clients on the other side of the visa petitions worry that the incentives of a U visa are creating new wrongs as well as righting old ones.

Marin County’s deputy public defender, Tamara Chellam, argued that the U visas might create irresistible incentives for people to invent or exaggerate offenses. A recent client of Ms. Chellam is married to a woman who applied for a U visa while fighting her spouse for custody of their daughter. The woman testified that in early 2008, the defendant followed her to work at 5 a.m. and broke the window of her car. Although there were no other witnesses, the husband was convicted of stalking and assault. Ms. Chellam said she expected him to be deported on his release from prison.

A decade earlier, the woman had reported that her husband had abused her but subsequently said she wanted to drop charges, Ms. Chellam said. She applied for a U visa in 2007 on the basis of that incident, but court testimony revealed she had worried that it would not suffice because victims are required to cooperate continuously. Ms. Chellam said she suspected that the wife had tailored the 2008 incident to help support her subsequent successful application for a visa.

“The U visa offers a wonderful opportunity when used appropriately, but it can be lopsided and misused,” Ms. Chellam said. “If a person wants to get rid of a spouse fighting for custody, or a rival gang member, these visas are very convenient, while the people on the other side can lose everything: their children, their jobs, their liberty and their right to stay here.”

On the other hand, applicants for U visas tend to be unusually sympathetic, helping to explain why the law creating the visa gained nearly unanimous bipartisan support at the end of the Clinton administration.

“Undocumented immigrants are unbelievably vulnerable to abuse, exploitation and victimization because their fear of detection keeps them from reporting that victimization,” said Susan Bowyer, the managing lawyer for the Oakland office of the International Institute of the Bay Area. “It’s like they’re in a never-ending nightmare, where people kick them while they’re down because they are down.”

While struggling to break the bureaucratic logjam surrounding U visas, immigration lawyers and other advocates in this region, which is rich in both immigrants and immigrant advocates, formed a coalition. The group met regularly and communicated by frequently by e-mail to encourage one another, trade ideas and pressure immigration officials.

Keen pressure was brought in March 2007, when the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law in Los Angeles — joined by three Bay Area advocacy groups — filed a federal lawsuit in San Francisco against Citizenship and Immigration Services. The Bay Area groups included Ms. Bowyer’s team in Oakland, the Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach group in San Francisco and Catholic Charities CYO, also based in San Francisco.

The Bay Area has since taken a prominent position nationwide in winning approvals for visas, with 16 local advocacy groups gaining 773 visas for their clients — more than 12 percent of the national total.

Ms. Bowyer’s office alone claimed 148 approvals. She calls herself a “U-vangelist” and churns out long e-mail messages and reports late into the night.

But not everyone applauds her success.

“The U visa goes beyond what’s necessary — or what should be necessary — to get people’s cooperation,” said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for Immigration Reform. “Why should we have to provide incentives for people not here legally when we do nothing extra for people who are here legally?”

For the baby sitter from Guatemala, the idea of getting a U visa in return for cooperation played no role in her decision to go to the police. She had done so in 2003, six years before she sought a visa. When she later learned she could apply for the visa, it was more, she suggested, like a gift from a universe that now seemed just a little more kind.

“Of course, I would have preferred another way to stay here,” she said. “But this was the way it happened, and it was worth it.”

http://bit.ly/7Tm6Jm

Despite Aiding U.S., Iraqi Is Denied a Green Card

Nada Alkhaddar, shown with her son Mohamed in their North Side apartment, is struggling to get a green card for her husband.

Ahmed Alrais, center with back to camera, in an undated photo from Iraq, where he works as an interpreter for the Army.

By KATIE FRETLAND

Published: January 7, 2010

CHICAGO — Nada Alkhaddar spends her days at the Muslim Women Resource Center helping refugees and immigrants deal with government and commercial bureaucracies that can make life in the United States seem about as easy as computing the Alternative Minimum Tax.

“We help anyone, Muslims or Christians, from here or anywhere in the city,” Ms. Alkhaddar said as she guided an Eastern European man through a long questionnaire from a local bank. She adjusted her hijab and smiled as she worked in an office overlooking Devon and Western Avenues, an Indo-Pakistani neighborhood just north and west of downtown.

Despite her skills at navigating the obstacles immigrants face, Ms. Alkhaddar cannot seem to help the person closest to her and her three children — her husband, Ahmed Alrais — who is trying to get a green card.

Mr. Alrais came to the United States in the spring of 2008 after his life had been threatened for working as an interpreter for the United States Army in Iraq. Unable to find a job during the recession and without a green card, he returned in February to the country he had fled to work again for the Army through a private contractor.

Federal officials at United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, part of the Department of Homeland Security, will not give Mr. Alrais credit for the time he has spent on a United States military base overseas so he can fulfill an American residency requirement to get the green card. His application was denied in November.

Mr. Alrais, 51, struggles to understand a system that would have given him a green card if he had stayed in the United States for the full year without a job, instead of working with American forces in Iraq.

“That’s confusing; that’s very confusing,” Mr. Alrais said Wednesday via Skype from northern Iraq. “We get hit by mortars, like, I don’t know, once or twice a month, and when we go out, we don’t know when we are going to be attacked, and sacrificing being here away from our families.”

Despite the turmoil and political controversy over how easily some immigrants enter the United States illegally, Mr. Alrais’s experience shows how formidable the challenges can be for many refugees and immigrants — even those with families in the United States and seemingly solid credentials.

“He serves the country with his life in such a dangerous place,” said Ms. Alkhaddar, 50, who keeps a purple folder full of government papers relating to her husband’s case at her apartment on Chicago’s North Side.

The folder contains documents like their marriage license, as well as letters of recommendation from Mr. Alrais’s military supervisors in Iraq.

“He has been very supportive of our presence, helped our soldiers and has been a loyal friend to us,” said Maj. James B. Phillips of the Army in one letter, which also described Mr. Alrais as “trustworthy and dependable.” Major Phillips worked with Mr. Alrais in 2003.

In an e-mail message this week from Iraq, Major Philips said Mr. Alrais was an outstanding interpreter whom he highly respected.

“The troops and I also liked him because when we first met he had a Mustang that he would drive to work every now and then,” the major said. “It was always nice to see a classic American car while deployed.”

Fred Tsao, policy director at the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, said Mr. Alrais’s ordeal to secure a green card was “crazy.”

“To go back and face the dangers while serving this country and then be denied a green card seems really unfair,” Mr. Tsao said. “It’s an awful deterrence to making a contribution to the country that took you in. Something is terribly wrong here.”

Ms. Alkhaddar and Mr. Alrais fled their home in Baghdad in 2006 after his work for the United States Army in 2003 and 2004 made him a target for Iraqis angered by the invasion.

“A lot of people were assassinated just because they had a contract working with the U.S. forces,” Mr. Alrais said.

A grocer refused to sell food to his youngest son, Mohamed. “He said, ‘We will never sell anything for you because of your father,’ ” Ms. Alkhaddar said. “He came home crying. They start kidnapping people. For our safety we moved.”

The family went to Egypt for two years, where they lived in a compound called Beverly Hills outside Cairo. They came to the United States as refugees in May 2008, as the recession was hitting the American job market.

Even though Mr. Alrais had the proper documentation for a refugee and was a chef trained in France, he could not find a good job in Chicago to support his family. He left the United States in February to work in Iraq as an interpreter with Global Linguist Solutions, a contractor based in Virginia that provides translators to the American military.

Mr. Alrais’s wife and children stayed behind, planning to apply for citizenship for the family after they had met the residency requirement of one year. May was their one-year anniversary, and Ms. Alkhaddar and the children were given green cards. But Mr. Alrais’s application was denied.

In a letter to Mr. Alrais in November, Donald P. Ferguson, the Chicago field office director of Citizenship and Immigration Services, said Mr. Alrais had not met the residency requirement because he had not been in the United States for a full year after he arrived. Because of his work with the military in Iraq, he was away from Feb. 19 until Sept. 11, 2009.

Mr. Ferguson wrote that being on an American territory on a military base in Iraq did not count toward residency. “The service is unable to consider your time working in Iraq to fulfill the physical presence requirement for adjustment of status purposes,” he wrote.

Mr. Ferguson cited another problem with the application: Mr. Alrais had given his power of attorney to his wife so she could apply for the green card for him while he was overseas. Ms. Alkhaddar submitted an Internal Revenue Service form showing she held his power of attorney, but the Department of Homeland Security does not accept that form as sufficient proof of power of attorney, Mr. Ferguson said.

Mr. Ferguson did not return phone calls requesting comment. Marilu Cabrera, an agency spokeswoman, said the agency would not comment on any specific cases.

Thomas Ragland, an immigration lawyer in Washington who previously worked for the Department of Justice and the Board of Immigration Appeals, said the immigration system could be impossible for the average person to handle.

“Even some average lawyers out there are not very good at navigating it,” Mr. Ragland said, “even though they charge for it.”

Mr. Ragland said Mr. Alrais, who plans to come to Chicago later this month to plead his case, deserved an advocate to help him get a green card, considering how members of Congress and the military had spoken about the importance of taking care of Iraqis who aid the armed forces.

Ms. Alkhaddar keeps in touch with her husband over her computer at home, telling him how the children are doing.

Their oldest son, Amro, 27, is a mechanic on Chicago’s South Side. Their daughter, Shahad, 21, is an interior design student at Harrington College downtown. Their youngest son, Mohamed, is a sophomore at Mather High School, where he plays football.

Mohamed, 17, dreams of being a Chicago policeman. “For America,” he said.