Safety Pin Immigration

We are a safe space to protect you and your family

PROTECTION, PRESERVATION, SECURITY AND STABILITY

Trump can start deporting a half a million people on Day 1

Here is another article in the Desert Sun talking about deportation options under Trump, time to get legal:

The federal government has a list of every undocumented immigrant who applied for deportation relief under President Barack Obama’s executive action. Many are afraid of what Donald Trump will do with that list if he becomes president.

A President Trump, or any future president, could repeal Obama's executive action, called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Once repealed, hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants would no longer have deportation relief. Trump, who has said no one is immune or exempt from enforcement, would have their personal information.

To be clear, nobody on Trump’s election team has suggested using DACA information to deport immigrants. While the fear of that hypothetical is real, the likelihood of it actually happening is slim. But if a President Trump wanted to do this, it would be legal.

The president of the United States has significant influence over immigration policy. He or she can unilaterally dictate policies that increase or decrease the number of people deported from the country each year.

The Desert Sun spoke with immigration lawyers and policy experts, including the former assistant secretary of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to find out how many people a future president can deport without passing new law or securing additional funding from Congress.

“The executive branch has always been very interested in doing things without Congress in this area because it’s very hard to get something by Congress, even bipartisan bills like the Dream Act,” said Julie Myer Woods, former head of ICE under President George W. Bush. “I think there’s a ton that can be done without a legislative change.”

“I think there’s a ton that can be done without a legislative change.”

JULIE MYER WOODS, FORMER HEAD OF ICE UNDER PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

In the absence of immigration reform from the House or Senate, the Bush and Obama administrations took unilateral action to shape immigration policy so that it reflected their views, Woods added.

For example, President Bush unilaterally expanded e-verify, an internet-based system that uses databases from several government agencies to verify if people working for the federal government are legally authorized to work in the country. Bush also pressured employers to fire undocumented workers. Obama further pushed the boundaries of executive power by granting deportation relief to immigrants who don’t have a criminal record in order to formally prioritize who gets deported.

Because there are so many undocumented immigrants in the U.S. and our laws make it relatively easy to deport them, one of the biggest limitations to mass deportation is resources. According to a 2011 letter from the then-head of the Department of Homeland Security, the agency has enough resources to deport about 400,000 people each fiscal year.

During the Obama administration, more than 2.8 million immigrants have been deported, earning him the nickname of "deporter-in-chief." The highest number ever deported came in fiscal year 2012 when 409,000 were removed from the country. Since then, the number of deportations has decreased, falling to 256,000 in fiscal year 2015.

Experts who spoke with The Desert Sun said a President Trump could easily surpass Obama’s deportation numbers by reallocating resources and resurrecting enforcement programs that are no longer en vogue.

“I think you could quickly approach 500,000 (people). I don’t think it would be difficult to reach that level,” said Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, a conservative non-profit research organization. “This significant increase can be accomplished with policy changes and with a change in allocation of resources.”

The two programs most commonly pointed to were “287 G” and “Secure Communities.” Expanding these programs would make it easier for ICE to detain undocumented immigrants without having to significantly increase the agency’s budget, experts said.

The 287 G program essentially deputizes local police officers and sheriff’s deputies to check immigration status of immigrants and place holds on undocumented people. This wouldn’t hurt the agency’s budget because state and local law enforcement do the heavy lifting, Vaughn said.

“Designated officers in the participating law enforcement agency get training in immigration law and enforcement and are deputized,” Vaughn said. “You might have a booking officer at a jail who is trained and when they encounter someone at the jail, they have the authority to put that person in deportation instead of having an ICE officer come in and review. It’s very efficient and it uses state and local resources.”

A President Trump also could increase the number of deportations under the Secure Communities program. This program gave ICE access to fingerprint databases of state and local law enforcement agencies. Immigration officers were then able to check those databases with their system and, if they see a match, ask local jails and prisons to hold inmates for ICE.

Some states, including California, pushed back on the program by passing laws prohibiting law enforcement from prolonging detainment. The program itself stopped being used around 2014 when DHS said they were going to continue to work with law enforcement but narrow the scope of who they target.

Trump mentioned both of these programs, and his desire to expand them, during the major immigration policy speech he delivered in Arizona after returning from Mexico, where he met with President Enrique Peña Nieto.

 

Today, there are too few judges to rapidly process a backlog of more than 500,000 immigration cases. However, immigration law offers multiple ways to deport immigrants without having them see a judge and a President Trump could streamline the legal process.

Expedited removals and judicial orders are legal ways to deport people without having them see a judge. Expedited removals are like a plea deal where immigrants agree not to fight their case in order to be released from an immigration detention center sooner. Currently, in part due to the backlog, immigrants wait months to see a judge.

Judges can issue judicial orders of removal during sentencing for certain criminal cases. This process removes the need to have a separate hearing in front of an immigration judge.

While all of these presidential prerogatives exist now, there would be resistance to each.

Civil rights and immigrant advocacy groups could challenge new enforcement tactics in court, targeting local agencies, said David Bier, an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute.

“Even if you are granted the authority to do this, the courts have shut down local enforcement on discrimination grounds. That is what we saw in Arizona for example,” he said. “It’s just not worth the risk for these localities to risk lawsuit after lawsuit.”

Our laws allow us to deport as many people as we can afford to. This applies to legal immigrants, including permanent residents, as well as undocumented immigrants, experts said.

Immigrants who come into contact with law enforcement can be deported. In immigration law there is no distinction between a shoplifter and a murderer. People don't have to be convicted in criminal court to be considered convicts in immigration court, said Ben Johnson, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

“Truth of the matter is that our current immigration laws are extremely harsh,” Johnson said. “With any kind of drug offense it is incredibly easy to be deported from the United States. You can be a legal permanent resident living and working here for the last 25 years, been law abiding for the entire time, and you get caught with a minor drug charge and you can be subject to immediate removal from the United States.”

The border wall, deportation forces and extreme vetting grab headlines but if Trump is elected none of those campaign promises is likely to happen without increased funding or new legislation. Trump's goal to remove 11 million people in two years is unrealistic, according to Ben Gitis, director of labor market policy for the American Action Forum, a center-right policy and advocacy group.

In order to accomplish that goal, he would have to increase the number of detention beds from 30,000 to 340,000 and the number of immigration courts from 60 to 1,300. Trump would have to charter at least 17,000 flights and 30,000 busses for each of the two years, Gitis added.

“I don’t think he will be able to accomplish this without additional funding,” he said.

But Trump doesn’t need additional funding to double the number of deportations from fiscal year 2015.

“He can cause fear and fear can lead to people leaving the United States.”

DAVID BIER, AN IMMIGRATION POLICY ANALYST

“He can cause a lot of fear,” Bier said. “He can cause fear and fear can lead to people leaving the United States. People who just don’t want to end up in detention or don’t want to end up being caught, maybe you could argue that that’s going to be an effect.”

Trump’s focus has been on immigrants with criminal backgrounds. It remains unclear what a President Trump would do to the millions of undocumented immigrants with roots in the United States and no criminal record.

The closest we’ve gotten to hearing Trump address these people was during the presidential debates when he said he’d deal with them after stopping the flow of illegal migration – something that has never happened in the United States.

Trump to use DACA list-article in Washington Times

A top columnist in Washington reports there already are indications that illegal aliens in the United States are self-deporting after Donald Trump’s election victory on Tuesday, in light of the promises the president-elect has made to crack down on illegal immigration.

Washington Examiner columnist Paul Bedard cited a source saying that some illegal aliens in Virginia left for the border on Wednesday, the day Trump was declared the winner.

Immigration, along with health care and jobs, are the top three agenda items Trump has adopted, according to comments he made after meeting with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan on Thursday.

“We have a lot to do. We’re going to work very strongly on immigration, health care and we’re looking at jobs, big-league jobs,” he said.

Trump will be working with a Republican House and a Republican Senate when he takes office in January.

Bedard noted that some 1.4 million illegals “who followed President Obama’s request to sign up for two controversial amnesty programs could be among the first to face deportation under the new administration.

“The reason: In exchange for getting into the two programs, they handed over their identities, home addresses, and admitted to being in the United States illegally, making them the easiest to find and legally deport,” he wrote.

He quoted John Miano of the Center for Immigration Studies, who said: “I was surprised anyone would be stupid enough to sign up for DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans). Yet apparently hundreds of thousands of people did so anyway.”

The government list has an estimated 1.4 million names already.

Illegal immigration across the nation’s southern border is one of two immigration issues confronting the United States. The second is legal immigration of mostly Muslims, under federally funded programs, from Syria and other parts of the Middle East.

Trump has promised to address that issue also, because of concerns the U.S. is allowing terrorists to come into the U.S. along with the needy.

Andy Semotiuk in Forbes said Trump’s plans include “deporting 11 million unlawfully present immigrants, building a wall on the Mexican border to be paid by Mexico and blocking certain Muslims from terrorism-related areas from immigrating to the United States.”

He doubted millions would be deported, because of the costs, but pointed out Obama’s orders creating DACA and DAPA easily can be reversed.

“Similarly, the current policy of prosecutorial discretion that shelters some unlawful immigrants by focusing on violent criminal deportations as a priority, could be cancelled by a new Trump executive order,” he said.

“Clearly Trump will want to stem the tide of Syrian refugees coming to the United States. He spoke in particular about blocking Muslim immigration from the areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies. That’s likely to come in the early days of Trump’s presidency,” he wrote.

Trump already has advocates for his objectives in Congress.

“In the area of employment, some immigration attorneys expect difficulty in expanding the H-1B visa program not only because of Trump, but also because Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Republican senator from Iowa, will be leading opponents of easing H1B work visa requirements by Congress. Instead of expanding who may come in under the H-1B program, which is particularly needed by many high tech companies in Silicon Valley, it is more likely that Congress will increase the prevailing wage required and introduce an American-worker-first element,” the Forbes commentary said.

The London Daily Mail reported shortly before the election that Trump said he was willing to “work with them,” meaning those in the nation illegally.

“The new statement to [Anderson] Cooper indicates that The Donald would expect illegal immigrants to self-deport and then come back and pay taxes and do other things to gain legal status, which clarified part of Trump’s plan,” the report said.

According to Politifact, among the options in Trump’s plans are a wall along the southern border, the end of “catch-and-release” on the border, the deportation of criminals, the end of sanctuary cities where federal immigration laws are suspended, the end of Obama’s grants of amnesty, and more screening.

WND columnist Devvy Kidd pointed out that overturning a few court precedents and depriving illegal aliens of support from federal taxpayers would make a big difference.

“Should Donald Trump get elected,” she wrote before the election, “he can sign [a] bill into law and we will see mass self-deporting because there would no more gravy train on the backs of hardworking Americans.

“Illegal aliens lie to obtain employment. They steal jobs from millions of Americans who do want to work – especially in construction. Illegals have bankrupted hospitals and drained budgets of school districts depriving natural born and naturalized American children of a better education. They cheat the system daily and steal the identity of hundreds of thousands of Americans across this country to obtain employment, making the lives of those victims hell. You don’t reward such unlawful behavior with amnesty or any pathway to citizenship; you deport them,” she wrote.

“This isn’t about compassion. Do we feel compassion for a bank robber? This isn’t about how nice an illegal alien might be; it’s about our laws. It doesn’t matter if the illegal has been here five minutes or 50 years. They know if caught they will be deported. This isn’t about breaking up families. Illegal minors who will be deported right along with the parent(s) should blame their parents for smuggling them across the border in violation of our laws.”

WND columnist Chuck Norris also wrote recently: “First, our next president and Congress must stop the intensive flow of illegal immigration on our southern border by erecting a wall and bolstering its security by whatever means necessary. Nothing can replace it. Where ports are also a problem, they too must be better secured. Until we stop the porous illegal pathways, we fight in vain for a real immigration solution.”

He said a second move must be to refocus and redirect legal immigration, and the nation’s “open-door policy” needs to be re-evaluated.

He said officials “need to be intentional and selective but fair in the flow of future immigration.”

“They need to turn off the spigots in certain areas and turn them on in others. We need to treat all people without prejudice, but we need not fear restricting temporary flows of certain peoples. We need to better manage the ebbs and flows (temporary openings, closings and restrictions) of immigration streams into our country.”

Those being brought into the United States from the Middle East are in a different situation, as they are legal.

However, Trump is concerned that thousands are virtually unknown, and the U.S. could be importing terror along with legitimate refugees.

After Trump’s election, the Refugee Resettlement Watch blog speculated about Trump’s promises to address the issue.

Wrote Ann Corcoran on the site: “If funds are slashed, the numbers to be resettled in your towns and cities will be slashed because as I have told you ad nauseum the resettlement contractors have little money of their own. They need your tax dollars or they wither and die.”

In an email to Newsweek, Corcoran reported, Vidhya Manivannan, a former worker at Church World Service, one of nine U.S. refugee resettlement agencies, said, “If [a President Trump] decide[s] to cut the state funds or federal funds for refugees, refguee resettlement will collapse and we won’t be able to bring in any refugees to this country.”

Corcoran pointed out that Trump will have the authority to suspend such discretionary spending, which has the “refugee resettlement industry” in a panic.

What Donald Trump's vow to deport would mean?

This article appeared in the New York Times, my client's need to consider this and the implication it would have for them remaining in this country:

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump’s promise to deport two million to three million immigrants who have committed crimes suggested that he would dramatically step up removals of both people in the United States illegally and those with legal status. If carried out, the plan potentially would require raids by a vastly larger federal immigration force to hunt down these immigrants and send them out of the country.

Addressing the issue in an interview broadcast Sunday on the CBS program “60 Minutes,” Mr. Trump adopted a softer tone on immigrants than he did during his campaign, when he called many of them rapists and criminals. He instead referred to them as “terrific people,” saying they would be dealt with only after the border had been secured and criminals deported.

But by placing the number of people he aims to turn out of the country as high as three million, Mr. Trump raised questions about which immigrants he planned to target for deportation and how he could achieve removals at that scale.

“If he wants to deport two to three million people, he’s got to rely on tactics that will divide communities and create fear throughout the country,” said Kevin Appleby, the senior director of international migration policy at the Center for Migration Studies of New York. “He would have to conduct a sweep, or raids or tactics such as those, to reach the numbers he wants to reach. It would create a police state, in which they would have to be aggressively looking for people.”

The details are crucial to understanding the approach of a president-elect who centered his campaign on a promise to build a border wall and deport lawbreakers. On Monday, President Obama said he would urge Mr. Trump to consider leaving in place his executive actions that have shielded from deportation immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children.

A Look at the Numbers

Asked on “60 Minutes” whether he would seek to deport “millions and millions of undocumented immigrants,” Mr. Trump said his priority would be to remove “people that are criminal and have criminal records.”

“What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records — gang members, drug dealers, we have a lot of these people, probably two million, it could be even three million. We are getting them out of our country or we are going to incarcerate,” Mr. Trump said. “But we’re getting them out of our country, they’re here illegally.”

The Obama administration has estimated that 1.9 million “removable criminal aliens” are in the United States. That number includes people who hold green cards for legal permanent residency and those who have temporary visas. It also includes people who have been convicted of nonviolent crimes such as theft, not just those found guilty of felonies or gang-related violence.

“They certainly have that many to start,” said Jessica M. Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that supports reduced immigration.

But even if Mr. Trump’s numbers are correct — and many immigration activists dispute them — it is not clear Mr. Trump could carry out those deportations quickly without violating due process.

In many cases, convicts would have to go through immigration courts before they could be deported. Those courts are overwhelmed with huge backlogs, so obtaining deportation orders from judges can take many months — if not many years. Thousands of immigrants are serving jail sentences that under current law cannot be curtailed. According to official figures, as of June only about 183,000 immigrants had been convicted of crimes and also had deportation orders so they could be detained and removed quickly.

Targeting Criminals

Mr. Trump’s approach would in some ways be a continuation of policies Mr. Obama has pursued to focus immigration enforcement on convicted criminals.

In 2014, his administration issued guidelines instructing agents to make criminals the highest priorities for their operations. In 2015, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement figures, the majority of the 235,413 people deported — 59 percent — were convicted criminals, while 41 percent were removed for immigration violations.

“Under the Obama administration we have already managed to calibrate our policy with heavy emphasis on criminal aliens,” said Muzaffar Chishti, the director of the New York University School of Law office of the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research group.

Since 2009, Mr. Obama has presided over the deportation of about 2.5 million immigrants, prompting sharp criticism from advocacy groups. He did so in part to build political support for a broad revision of immigration laws that would have provided a path to citizenship for immigrants in the country illegally.

 

Under a now-defunct program known as Secure Communities, the Obama administration used digital fingerprints shared by local law enforcement departments to find and deport immigrants who had committed crimes. Immigration and Customs Enforcement also partnered with local authorities to prioritize the arrest and detention of criminal aliens.

Both measures helped drive deportations to roughly 400,000 per year during Mr. Obama’s first term. Multiplying that number by many times would almost certainly require reinstituting a program like Secure Communities and employing vastly more immigration agents, as well as using more aggressive tactics to find and remove immigrants who may have broken the law, according to Mr. Appleby of the Center for Migration Studies of New York.

Resistance From Cities

If Mr. Trump seeks to revive programs of close cooperation between local police and federal immigration authorities, he is likely to encounter legal challenges and resistance from dozens of cities and counties that have curtailed or rejected cooperation.

Mr. Trump has said he would cut off federal funding for cities that refuse to help federal agents detain unauthorized immigrants. During his campaign, he highlighted terrible crimes by immigrants he said had escaped detection because of protective policies.

At a news conference in Chicago on Monday, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a Democrat, sought to ease fears of deportation and harassment as he reiterated Chicago’s status as a sanctuary city for immigrants.

“It is important for families that are anxious, it is important for children and adolescents that are unsure because of Tuesday, to understand the city of Chicago is your home,” Mr. Emanuel said. “You are always welcome in this city.”

Cook County, where Chicago is, has adopted an especially restrictive policy on ties between police and federal agents. Mr. Emanuel encouraged immigrants to call a hotline for legal advice, and said Chicago would quickly set up a municipal identification program to allow undocumented immigrants access to city services.

Mayor Betsy Hodges of Minneapolis was defiant. “I will continue to stand by and fight for immigrants regardless of President-elect Trump’s threats,” she said. “If police officers were to do the work of ICE, it would harm our ability to keep people safe and solve crimes.” Mayor Ras Baraka of Newark, said the city’s protections would not change.

In California, lawmakers in a Legislature dominated by Democrats rejected Mr. Trump’s numbers and plans. “It is erroneous and profoundly irresponsible to suggest that up to three million undocumented immigrants living in America are dangerous criminals,” said Kevin de León, the president pro tempore of the Senate. He said Mr. Trump’s figures were “a thinly veiled pretense for a catastrophic policy of mass deportation,” and he told immigrants, “the State of California stands squarely behind you.”

The Los Angeles police chief, Charlie Beck, said his force would not change its policies. “We are not going to work in conjunction with Homeland Security on deportation efforts,” he said, according to The Los Angeles Times. “That is not our job, nor will I make it our job.”

Trump will have broad power to crack down on immigration

This article was in USA today describing the powers Trump will have when he is in power in January:

So how big will Donald Trump's wall really be?

The wall along the southwest border with Mexico was one of the president-elect's signature campaign promises, as he railed against illegal immigration and vowed to seal the borders against criminals, terrorists and millions of people trying to enter the United States legally. Now, immigration experts are trying to figure out exactly how those policies will work in a Trump administration.

And so far, it looks like he will be able to follow through on many of his pledges — with or without help from Congress.

"Generally speaking, any president has wide discretion when it comes to enforcing our immigration laws because immigration touches on national sovereignty," said Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor at Cornell Law School and author of a 21-volume treatise, Immigration Law and Procedure.

MORE DEPORTATIONS

The first, and possibly easiest, change Trump can make is redirecting the Department of Homeland Security to ramp up deportations. At the beginning of the campaign, Trump said all 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country must go. In the closing months, he talked more about deporting immigrants with criminal records — "bad hombres" — and opened the possibility of finding a way for some to remain in the country.

In an interview that aired Sunday on CBS' 60 Minutes, Trump said he plans to immediately deport 2 million to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Trump said he would emphasize criminals before deciding about law-abiding families illegally in the country.

Trump would need congressional approval to hire more Border Patrol agents to monitor the frontier and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to round up immigrants living in the interior of the country. Trump doesn't need any new money to change the focus of the immigration agents who are already in place, said Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, an immigrant advocacy group.

"If the Department of Homeland Security secretary greenlights, simply in tone, the ramping up of enforcement actions, that is a system that can wreak havoc very, very quickly," Noorani said.

Tim Cushing and his pals love the government

Everyone knows how Tim Cushing loves the government, with all of his little heart does he love the government.  His persona on Techdirt is pretty funny, but in the end he would suck the governments dick faster than a kid if he could.  Why would Tim Cushing do this.  Well the answer is comfort, we are all afraid of what is out there.  I guess my point is for all the Tim Cushings out there, minus being child molestors of course is not to be afraid, the only thing you have to fear is the government, in the end. 

Tim Cushing and why we need to get rid of people like him

Third level morality is on display.  What is that?  It means quite simply to quesiton authority, it means just because one can do something doesn't mean they should do something.  It also means that we cannot live in peace because people are unable to think with third level morality.  Tim Cushing is one of those people, someone unable to simply use third level morality.  What is happening in Oregon is an example of that.  The occupation of a vacant federal outpost, hardly a building is done solely because assholes like Frank R Papagni, Jr., AnneMarie Sgarlata and Kelly Zusman.  

 

It is time that just because the Government can lock up innocent ranchers doesn't mean they should.  If their is a shoot out then the blood is on the hands of these US prosecutors. 

Enter the future

As many may know I have been actively trying to seek work, unfortunately I am pretty much blocked by either old, irrelevant and false internet information.  Dealing with little boys like Kosta Demiris who decided he wanted to post a blog entry about me.  He essentially made a battle he had involving his client about me, and a interaction I had with her 5 years ago.  Its pretty funny that you would want to introduce me into it for no apparent reason.  But cleaning up your reputation is difficult when you got dumb fucks like Kosta Demiris. 

Obama did nothing

Sorry I have been away, been nursing back to back to back colds.  Hard having a little guy in preschool, he brings home every disease possible.  But to my blog point.  I have heard a lot of chatter the past couple days about Obama, Barry Obama releasing 6000 prisoners from federal prison.  First off Obama had absolutely nothing to do with this.  This was actually panned along time ago by the federal sentencing commission realizing that sentences have gotten out of hand.  Second a new article talked about that many of these 6000 are already released.  Also not true, many of them are in Federal Halfway houses awaiting release at the end of the month.  They are not released and trust me a Federal Halfway house is no place to have fun, I am sure many of them wish they were back in prison.  Honestly the reduction in a few of these sentences didn't really mean a whole lot.  These are mostly first time no violent drug offenders who made a mistake, nothing more.  Its time to reunite these people with their families. 

Either you are with me or against me?

This was a question asked in a rehtorical manner by someone protraying himself as a anarchist.  Truth be told anarchist wouldn't pretend to be another anarchist, they are subtle and behind the scens.  One of my best prison friends would talk to me constantly about his beliefs and even let me borrow his Organise! magazine from time to time.  It was very interesting stuff.  His adventures and stories will always be with me.  He was a good bunkie and a good friend for my time at the federal prison.  This is why I can't stand those who prop up corporate guttersnipes like Tim Cushing who works for Tech Dirt.  Now Tech DIrt claims to be independent, though they are acutally owned and run by Ziff Davis Corp, which is owned by j2 Global Communications Inc.  A company that has used and abused IP laws specifically patent laws against really inovative companies such as CalWave, Comodo, EasyLInk, Open Text, Packetel, Protus, Venali and Vitelity.  Of course no one including Mr. Cushing would dare disclose this in any of their work, nor that their site supported by banner ads who they would also never touch. 

 

I am not a corporate shill, I have integrity, none of my blogs have banner ads, and if they do I am not being paid by them nor endorse them.  I am certainly not helping a large technology corporation like j2 bring down other smaller companies, stealing their technology and suing them in patent court once I have take it.  The way these tech patent vultures go after their prey is akin to Howard Armstrong and Lee de Forest.  Of course after much deciption and attorneys de Forest prevailed their is little dout he had little contribution to the modern radio, where Armstrong actually invented the thing.  I support Amrstrong, people like Cushing and his rag tag gang, and you know who I am talking about are de Forest all the way.  They support through their actions big business, big lawyers, big, government, big big big.  They never dislose this, maybe they are so stupid they never even think about it.  

 

George W. Bush once said or was it Darth Vader, hard to remember, that either you are with me, or you are against me.  In the end either you support inmates in prisons getting second chances upon their release.  They are deserving of a second chance.  Especially white collar prisoners, who not only have to endure prison, but have their entire lifes and family torn apart, all their assets lost, divorces, suicides, and so forth.  EIther you clap when Bernie Madolf's son committed suicide or you want to see a change.  There is no in between,  I have seen alot of deaths at peoples on hands who were wrongfully indicted or investigated by the FBI.  People should be held accountable for their actions, but we must follow the European model, we need to make these people financially liable in civil court, not criminalize every overt act.  For those who don't understand the difference of Criminal Intent or as we call it Mens Rea and just intent, I am not going to bother to explain it to you.  Go to law school and learn it, I am not a teacher anymore.  If you want to trust your government and support them, then you are not with me. Everyone commits three federal felonies a day, their have been plenty of books about it, I suggest you go to your local library.  Also if the ABA can't find all the the pontentially criminal statutes on the books with the Feds, I seriously doubt a twitter troll could do it, so don't be a jack ass.  

 

I want to see all felons get a second chance, this means a clean record on the internet, and on the books.  They paid their debt to suicide more times than you can imagine, and its time that these people be allowed to work and allowed to provide for their families.  Its real simple, either you are for that, or you are for the Prison Industrial Complex and large corporations that want to see it through.  Make your choice, either you are with me, or with Timmy Cushing.  There is nothing funny about molesting children Tim, and their is nothing funny about felons getting a second chance. I want to see that, the only way your generation will ever see that is if you go to Federal Prison.  But don't you worry I am sure you are on your way Tim.  

Tim Cushing, Techdirt's resident corporate dick sucker

Stooge of Corporate America, let me introduce you to Mr. Tim Cushing.  Not only is he a convicted child molester, but Tim Cushing is a stooge to corporate interests at Techdirt, which is a favorite go to blog for PC Magazine owned by Ziff Davis, who is owned by j2 Global.

 

Now Mr. Cushing won't tell you about this nice little arrangement with j2 Global and for good reason, because j2Global is the 1% incarnate.  A company that frequently like Mr. Cushing has abused IP law, something Mr. Cushing seems very disinterested in as his interest is little old me.  What j2 Global has done is abuse intellectual property laws and gone after companies with patent litigation including CalWave, Comoodo, EasyLink, Open Text, Packetel, Protus, Venali and Vitelity.  These companies all filed various counter-claims for antitrust violations of the Sherman act and California Business and Professions code.   J2Global has received numerous complaints from subscribers on the difficulty of canceling services with them, including high fees and lack of toll free number portability.  Essentially j2 Global is a perfect example of a super vile corporation abusing IP laws and its customer base.

 

Now you won't hear Mr. Tim Cushing talking about this, instead he has decided to engage in ad homonym attacks on me.  Well Tim Cushing you are the problem, you are the 1%, you are against prison reform, you are for abusive corporations getting away with a plethora of IP violations that you never talk about.  

The Great Silent Majority part 2

The great silent majority was a term that Richard Nixon made to deferentiate most people to those who were protesting the Veitnam War.  Indeed also sorts of wacking social stuff was occuring during the last 60's and early 70's.  Most of this was on television and took up a great swatch of news time as well.  The great silent majority had no voice, until Nixon in one of his most brillant moves as president gave them a voice.  

Flash forward to today, the new Nixon is HIllary, but the one who is carring the mantle of the silent majority is Donald Trump.  He is sezied upon issues most politicians weren't addressing.  The first and most obvious is our problems at the Mexican border and the overall social and econimic decline by allowing so many illegal alliens into the country.  People are very much mad about this.  They are mad that the government has downplayed illegal allien violence towards citiziens.  This silent majority doesn't want comphrensive immigration reform, and don't care of these Mexican citizens get deported.  What they want is less crime, they want stability in schools, they want stability in government, drugs off the streets and so forth.  Illegal alliens are the cause of much of this.  They can never say this, because they don't want to look racist so they play along with comphrensive immigrations reform.  Trump gave voice to them, I can't believe no one has figured this out.  Polls often don't project reality, these people want stability and they love their country and their language and feel it is being stolen by them, by both Republicans and Democrats.  To those Mexicans who take it personally or feel attacked, you should feel that way.  But take it from their prospective, what if we has 12 million Americans just plop down in Baja California, wouldn't you feel attacked?  

Other issues I will get into at a later time that I do believe the silent majority support such as criminal justice reform.  I think both sides, the extreme left and extreme right positions created a industrial prison complex that we can no longer support or afford.  As a country we can't have the State of Main incarcerating as many people as the country of Saudi Arabia.  Its absurd, and we need to do something about it.  Again the silent majroity being played on the war on drugs, a war that rotinuely locked up low level offenders to crazy long sentences and became unable to join society following prison terms, while keeping free big time dealers and trafficers like the recently released El Chapo.  El Chapo and his ilk will never go to prison, but a kid on the streets of DC will..  Same with white collar, we want to throw away the key to a secretary of a mortgage firm, all the while the big bankers and financers go to lavish parties and play with their golden parachute money given as part of the HARP program so long ago.  These banks still not lending, again angering the silent majority.  Its hard for people not to be upset seeing harmless middle class families being destroyed by overzealous prosecutors and mentaly deficient judges.  But hey Democrats and Republicans need those parties, so these low lifes, the actual criminals have their parties.  (By the way part of being reentered into society US Probation will ask you a question to ensure that you as a white collar know that you got the short end, and that they purposefully didn't go after the banks in 2008.  Beyond disgusting, but that's your governemnt.  These are the things that Trump resonates with. 

To be continued. 

Hard to imagine

I recently was the victim of a copyright infringer.  As many of you already know I am currently writing a book entitled Grace Under Pressure.  In my book in which excerpts have been copyrighted (1-2601933851) I was actually copied by a malcontent who proceeded to post my book and its excerpts on his blog and went on a big rant against me.  This malcontent who I do not know nor care to know violated my copyright.  Luckily for me I know my rights and do intend to enforce them.  But I hope everyone who reads my blog understands the danger out there on the web and protects themselves accordingly.  

Interesting his pathetic buddies decided to spam me on Twitter the other day, beyond sad.  I encourage them to read my book when it comes out and please honor my copyright.  

EB-1 Visas, and the qualifications

EB-1 Visas, and what is required.  

1-1 Immigrant Status allows the “best and brightest” immigrants to gain permanent residency in the United States based upon their “extraordinary abilities.”   The EB 1-1 visa is the United States’ most advantageous immigration visa.  It offers its recipients many immigration benefits, including the ability to self-petition (petition without a prospective employer), skip the labor certification process, premium process, and obtain permanent residency much faster than other immigrant workers.

Eligibility:

The EB 1-1 Immigrant status is available to individuals with professions in the sciences, arts, education, business or athletics.  If you are not sure whether an immigrant’s profession is sufficient, more likely than not, it qualifies.

Qualifications:

The qualifications for EB 1-1 immigrant status cannot be simplified into a simple, concise rule.  The precise EB 1-1 standard has been debated for the last twenty years.  However, the following is a general overview of the EB 1-1 standard.

Generally speaking, an EB 1-1 applicant must demonstrate that he or she has extraordinary ability in the “sciences, arts, education, business or athletics.”  Extraordinary ability is defined by USCIS regulations as a “level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of those few who have risen to the top of the field of endeavor.”  Extraordinary ability can be demonstrated by meeting three of the following indicators:

  • receiving a lesser national or international prize or award for excellence in field of endeavor,
  • membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements of their members,
  • published material about the prospective immigrant’s work in professional journals, trade publications or major media,
  • participation as a judge of others in the field of expertise,
  • original scientific, scholarly or artistic contributions of major significance in the field of expertise,
  • authorship of scholarly articles in the field, published in professional journals or major media,
  • display of the prospective immigrant’s work at artistic exhibitions or showcases in more than one country,
  • performance in a lead, starring or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation,
  • commanding a high salary in the field of expertise, and
  • commercial success in the performing arts.

Extraordinary ability can also be demonstrated by receiving a major, international award (e.g. Nobel Prize or an Academy Award).

Although the regulations only require three factors, in reality it is often necessary to demonstrate more.  Again, the above description is a general overview of the general requirements.  Meeting three factors does not necessarily mean that an applicant is eligible for EB 1-1 status.  To understand the EB 1-1 visa more completely, please consult an EB 1-1 visa lawyer.

After Obtaining Permanent Residency:

Citizenship: After five years of permanent residency, the EB 1-1 immigrant may be eligible to become a naturalized U.S. citizen.

Travel Abroad: After obtaining permanent residency, the EB 1-1 immigrant may be able to freely travel abroad.  However, care must be taken to ensure that the permanent resident does not “abandon” his or her permanent residency by staying abroad for a significant amount of time.

Family Members: An EB 1-1 Visa recipient can confer permanent residency status to his or her spouse and minor children (i.e. unmarried children under the age of 21).

The news is terrible

What is currently happening in the news is a national tragedy.  The shooting in San Francisco should remind everyone of our need to control the border.  This of coruse means sensible immigration policy that benefits everyone.  It means we need reform and to remove aliens who are criminals and are ruining those who tried to get here legally.  

Hope everyone had a good 4th

Wishing all my clients and readers a happy 4th of July.  Sorry for the delay I was in an area with no web service.   

Happy 4th.   

    My God! How little do my countrymen know what precious blessings they are in possession of, and which no other people on earth enjoy! -- Thomas Jefferson

Write off your attorney fees and other legal fees

I was an attorney for 14 years and this was one of the number one questions. I was a family law attorney along with doing taxes and I would also give tax advice that I would make sure was reflected in any billing I gave to the client. Estate planning this is easy as it is directly related to taxes if you do a trust, but not if you do a will which is not tax deductible. This is one way to protect yourself with the IRS, it doesn't have to be complicated, it can be simple. After having gone to prison, the other thing I figured out with my free time was that you can write off your attorney fees is you are defending yourself with criminal charges related to your trade or business. Save to say their are several ways to make sure you can write off your attorney fees on taxes, its almost as easy as asking for spousal support on a request for order along with child custody.  Even if you loose you can write it off.  At least that's what I would do.  Hope someone finds this interesting. 

Changes with the EB-5

On June 3, 2015, Senators Charles Grassley and Patrick Leahy introduced a bi-partisan bill to extend and amend the Immigrant Investor Program. As part of a multi-series examination of the bill, below is detailed analysis of how the bill will change key aspects of the program as it relates to source and path of funds.

  1. Administrative Fees Must Be Sourced

    Current: In a 2012 Stakeholder’s meeting, Alejandro Mayorkas, then director of USCIS, confirmed that the administrative fees must be sourced. In its February 2015 Stakeholder’s meeting, USCIS indicated that administrative fees do not need to be sourced as USCIS did not have a “legal basis for requiring the . . . administrative fee . . . [to have] a lawful source.” 

    Proposed Changes: Under the proposed legislation, USCIS will have a “legal basis” for requiring investors to source the administrative fee. Proposed INA 203.5(b)(5)(L) states in pertinent part that the investor must show that “any funds used to pay administrative costs and fees associated with the alien’s investment were obtained from a lawful source and through lawful means.” 

    As currently written, the proposed changes leave open the possibility that investors may have to source legal and filing fees in addition to the investment and administrative fees.
     
  2. Tax Returns: 7 years of tax returns prior to I-526 filing tax returns mandatory for investors

    Current: Filing tax returns as part of I-526 documentation is not mandatory as tax returns are included as one of several options to document source of funds, as supported by the use of a disjunctive “or” in the regulations. 

    8 CFR 204.6(j)(3) states in pertinent part:

To show that the petitioner has invested, or is actively in the process of investing, capital obtained through lawful means, the petition must be accompanied by:

  1. Foreign business registration records;
  2. Corporate, partnership and personal tax returns of any kind filed within 5 years;
  3. Evidence identifying any other source(s) of capital; OR
  4. Certified copies of judgments or evidence of all pending governmental civil or criminal actions.

Proposed Changes: Under the proposed bill, the following language, reproduced in pertinent part, would be added under INA 203(b)(5)(L):

    1. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall require, as applicable, that an alien entrepreneur petition contain:

      1. Business and tax including:

        1. Foreign business registration records;
        2. Corporate, partnership and personal tax returns of any kind filed within 7 years with any tax jurisdiction;
        3. Evidence identifying any other source(s) of capital;AND
      2. Certified copies of judgments or evidence of all pending governmental civil or criminal actions.

Accordingly the new proposed changes to the INA appear to make mandatory the filing of 7 years of corporate, partnership, and personal tax returns for all investors.

  1. Identity of Intermediaries 

    Current: Currently, neither the regulations nor the INA requires any identity documents of intermediaries used by the investor in the exchange of funds into USD and transfer of USD funds into the U.S.

    Proposed Changes: Investors will have to provide the identity documents of all intermediaries used in the exchange and transfer of the investment funds as well as administrative fees and costs. 
     
  2. Restrictions on Gifts: Must be gifted by a close family member and giftor may be required to provide tax returns

    Current: Currently, neither the regulations nor the INA place any restrictions on gifted funds as the EB-5 investment. Instead, under USCIS policy, investors simply had to document the source of the gifted funds and provide an affidavit confirming the gifting of the investment funds with no obligation or expectation to repay. 

    Proposed Changes: An investor may only use gifted funds for EB-5 investment if the funds are gifted by a spouse, parent, child, sibling, or grandparent. Further, the gift must be made in “good faith” and not used to circumvent any limitations on permissible sources of income.

    Additionally, if a “significant portion” of the EB-5 funds are gifted, the giftor must also provide 7 years of tax returns prior to the I-526 filing and documentation of any monetary judgments against the giftor. The amount of funds that would constitute a “significant portion” of EB-5 funds is not defined.
     
  3. Restrictions on Loans: Must be secured by assets owned by the investor and lender must be a “reputable” bank or licensed lending institution

    Current: Based on 8 CFR 204.6(e) and USCIS’ May 30, 2013 EB-5 Policy Memorandum, investors have the option of depositing cash, equipment, property, or indebtedness (a promissory note) as capital; the regulation only requires an investor who uses indebtedness as capital to secure the capital on assets owned by the investor. 

    Prior to December 2014, USCIS was routinely approving cases wherein the investor obtained a home equity loan using a third party’s property as collateral. In most cases, the third party was the investor’s minor child. Beginning in 2014, with no statutory or regulatory authority and no prior notice to stakeholders of a change in policy, USCIS began denying such cases. As the basis for the denials, USCIS argued that such loans were not appropriate for EB-5 investment under the regulations as 8 CFR 204.6(e) required indebtedness to be secured by assets owned by the alien entrepreneur. 

    Categorization of capital in such an instance as “indebtedness” is incorrect. The investor is not investing indebtedness as capital as there is no debt arrangement between the investor and the NCE; that is, no promissory note exists between them. Instead, the investor obtains a home-equity loan, secured by lawfully obtained and owned assets, and then uses the cash proceeds from the loan as the EB-5 investment. Thus, under 8 CFR 204.6(e) the investor is investing “cash” as capital; the regulations do not require the underlying home-equity loan to be secured by any personal assets. 

    Proposed Changes: Under the proposed legislation, “[c]apital that is derived from indebtedness can only be counted toward the minimum capital investment requirement only if such capital is (i) secured by assets owned by the investor.” Additionally, the lender must be either a “reputable” bank or licensed lending institution. 

    First, it appears that the legislation is allowing for a scenario wherein USCIS has the power to determine the reputability of a bank after I-526 filing, when the investor has already obtained the loan and invested the capital. 

    Additionally, if this legislation passes, it appears that investors would no longer be able to use a company equity loan as the source of their funds unless the company issuing the loan happens to be a licensed lending institution. 

    Finally, if passed, the new law may provide USCIS with statutory authority to deny cases where the investor uses loan proceeds from a home equity loan using a third party’s property as collateral.
     
  4. Changes to Investment Amount

    Current: Investment amount is 1 million or $500,000 in a TEA. 

    Proposed: Investment amount is 1.2 million or $800,000 in a TEA. Investment amounts are subject to increase every 5 years (starting January 1, 2020) by the amount of the cumulative percentage change (CPU). 
  5.  

Analysis of EB-5 Reauthorization Bill: Source and Path of Funds

 

On June 3, 2015, Senators Charles Grassley and Patrick Leahy introduced a bi-partisan bill to extend and amend the Immigrant Investor Program. As part of a multi-series examination of the bill, below is detailed analysis of how the bill will change key aspects of the program as it relates to source and path of funds.

  1. Administrative Fees Must Be Sourced

    Current: In a 2012 Stakeholder’s meeting, Alejandro Mayorkas, then director of USCIS, confirmed that the administrative fees must be sourced. In its February 2015 Stakeholder’s meeting, USCIS indicated that administrative fees do not need to be sourced as USCIS did not have a “legal basis for requiring the . . . administrative fee . . . [to have] a lawful source.” 

    Proposed Changes: Under the proposed legislation, USCIS will have a “legal basis” for requiring investors to source the administrative fee. Proposed INA 203.5(b)(5)(L) states in pertinent part that the investor must show that “any funds used to pay administrative costs and fees associated with the alien’s investment were obtained from a lawful source and through lawful means.” 

    As currently written, the proposed changes leave open the possibility that investors may have to source legal and filing fees in addition to the investment and administrative fees.
     
  2. Tax Returns: 7 years of tax returns prior to I-526 filing tax returns mandatory for investors

    Current: Filing tax returns as part of I-526 documentation is not mandatory as tax returns are included as one of several options to document source of funds, as supported by the use of a disjunctive “or” in the regulations. 

    8 CFR 204.6(j)(3) states in pertinent part:

To show that the petitioner has invested, or is actively in the process of investing, capital obtained through lawful means, the petition must be accompanied by:

  1. Foreign business registration records;
  2. Corporate, partnership and personal tax returns of any kind filed within 5 years;
  3. Evidence identifying any other source(s) of capital; OR
  4. Certified copies of judgments or evidence of all pending governmental civil or criminal actions.

Proposed Changes: Under the proposed bill, the following language, reproduced in pertinent part, would be added under INA 203(b)(5)(L):

    1. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall require, as applicable, that an alien entrepreneur petition contain:

      1. Business and tax including:

        1. Foreign business registration records;
        2. Corporate, partnership and personal tax returns of any kind filed within 7 years with any tax jurisdiction;
        3. Evidence identifying any other source(s) of capital;AND
      2. Certified copies of judgments or evidence of all pending governmental civil or criminal actions.

Accordingly the new proposed changes to the INA appear to make mandatory the filing of 7 years of corporate, partnership, and personal tax returns for all investors.

  1. Identity of Intermediaries 

    Current: Currently, neither the regulations nor the INA requires any identity documents of intermediaries used by the investor in the exchange of funds into USD and transfer of USD funds into the U.S.

    Proposed Changes: Investors will have to provide the identity documents of all intermediaries used in the exchange and transfer of the investment funds as well as administrative fees and costs. 
     
  2. Restrictions on Gifts: Must be gifted by a close family member and giftor may be required to provide tax returns

    Current: Currently, neither the regulations nor the INA place any restrictions on gifted funds as the EB-5 investment. Instead, under USCIS policy, investors simply had to document the source of the gifted funds and provide an affidavit confirming the gifting of the investment funds with no obligation or expectation to repay. 

    Proposed Changes: An investor may only use gifted funds for EB-5 investment if the funds are gifted by a spouse, parent, child, sibling, or grandparent. Further, the gift must be made in “good faith” and not used to circumvent any limitations on permissible sources of income.

    Additionally, if a “significant portion” of the EB-5 funds are gifted, the giftor must also provide 7 years of tax returns prior to the I-526 filing and documentation of any monetary judgments against the giftor. The amount of funds that would constitute a “significant portion” of EB-5 funds is not defined.
     
  3. Restrictions on Loans: Must be secured by assets owned by the investor and lender must be a “reputable” bank or licensed lending institution

    Current: Based on 8 CFR 204.6(e) and USCIS’ May 30, 2013 EB-5 Policy Memorandum, investors have the option of depositing cash, equipment, property, or indebtedness (a promissory note) as capital; the regulation only requires an investor who uses indebtedness as capital to secure the capital on assets owned by the investor. 

    Prior to December 2014, USCIS was routinely approving cases wherein the investor obtained a home equity loan using a third party’s property as collateral. In most cases, the third party was the investor’s minor child. Beginning in 2014, with no statutory or regulatory authority and no prior notice to stakeholders of a change in policy, USCIS began denying such cases. As the basis for the denials, USCIS argued that such loans were not appropriate for EB-5 investment under the regulations as 8 CFR 204.6(e) required indebtedness to be secured by assets owned by the alien entrepreneur. 

    Categorization of capital in such an instance as “indebtedness” is incorrect. The investor is not investing indebtedness as capital as there is no debt arrangement between the investor and the NCE; that is, no promissory note exists between them. Instead, the investor obtains a home-equity loan, secured by lawfully obtained and owned assets, and then uses the cash proceeds from the loan as the EB-5 investment. Thus, under 8 CFR 204.6(e) the investor is investing “cash” as capital; the regulations do not require the underlying home-equity loan to be secured by any personal assets. 

    Proposed Changes: Under the proposed legislation, “[c]apital that is derived from indebtedness can only be counted toward the minimum capital investment requirement only if such capital is (i) secured by assets owned by the investor.” Additionally, the lender must be either a “reputable” bank or licensed lending institution. 

    First, it appears that the legislation is allowing for a scenario wherein USCIS has the power to determine the reputability of a bank after I-526 filing, when the investor has already obtained the loan and invested the capital. 

    Additionally, if this legislation passes, it appears that investors would no longer be able to use a company equity loan as the source of their funds unless the company issuing the loan happens to be a licensed lending institution. 

    Finally, if passed, the new law may provide USCIS with statutory authority to deny cases where the investor uses loan proceeds from a home equity loan using a third party’s property as collateral.
     
  4. Changes to Investment Amount

    Current: Investment amount is 1 million or $500,000 in a TEA. 

    Proposed: Investment amount is 1.2 million or $800,000 in a TEA. Investment amounts are subject to increase every 5 years (starting January 1, 2020) by the amount of the cumulative percentage change (CPU). 

California State Bar actually prodcues something worthwhile

Many of you know my feelings towards the California State Bar and my renewed attempts at having it dismantled and replaced with what most states have which is direct court authorization to practice law.  The State Bar is a political regieme and politics have no place in the law.  However despite this occausionally they produce some good literature and I thought I would direct my readers to it.  http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Public/Pamphlets/LivingTrust.aspx#16  It is definitely a good starting read for anyone interested in Living Trusts.  

As seen in 

og-fn-foxnews.jpg
images (1).jpg

Please note that the author of this blog and webiste, Sean Gjerde is NOT an attorney in the State of California (He holds other licenses) and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice on California Law. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal services, and any information contained in this blog and website is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.