Mediaboss Marketing

St. Louis, MO (PRWEB) February 05, 2015

On Wednesday, Brooklyn Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch answered questions about her stance on immigration reform at her two-day confirmation hearing. While already better received than current Attorney General Eric Holder, Lynch fielded many questions about the President's November executive actions.

When asked by Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) if she agreed with the legality of Obama's policies, Lynch replied that she had reviewed the report to Homeland Security that the Office of Legal Counsel had provided, and saw no "reason to doubt the reasonableness of those views."

Senator Jeff Sessions, of Arizona, told the Huffington Post (01/28/2015) that he disagreed with the policies and feels that the executive action was unconstitutional. He was especially concerned that employers would hire undocumented immigrants instead of United States Citizens.

When asked by Senator Sessions if she agreed with Attorney General Holder's comments that providing citizenship was "essential," Lynch replied that she hadn't studied the issue extensively, but "... people who come to this country in a variety of ways can rehabilitate themselves and apply, but that would have to be something that would be decided on a case-by-case basis."

Attorney Susan Cho Figenshau agrees with Lynch that the matter should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. It is her opinion that the President's executive action would disproportionately benefit people in the US illegally, and hopes for more immigration reform to benefit employers and those who are in the US legally, and who are spending in many cases more than ten years and sometimes tens of thousands of dollars while waiting in queue to become lawful permanent residents.

"The Presidents executive actions present no substantial relief on the horizon for employers with increasingly burdensome regulatory compliance obligations, foreign-born professionals working in their professions sometimes more than a decade, legally, as temporary workers, while waiting permanent residency; or U.S. citizens and permanent residents seeking permanent residency for their spouses."

She also disagrees with Sessions that granting citizenship to more immigrants would negatively impact United States employers, going on to add that the current system daunting and long-term hardships on both legal immigrants and United States employers, stating,

"The elimination of limits for employment-based immigrant petitions would merely reflect employers continuing needs for highly skilled often with advanced STEM degrees professionals. The current per-country quota system, in the meantime, imposes hardship on employers and professionals seeking green cards alike by forcing seekers into what is sometimes a 10-year journey. This plodding green card process does nothing to enhance opportunities for U.S. workers or to reduce employers demand for highly skilled workers."

Later, Sessions pressed Lynch again to find out if she thought that the President's executive action was legal and constitutional. "As I've read the opinion, I do believe it is, Senator," she replied.

View post:
Attorney Susan Cho Figenshau Discusses Immigration Reform

The recent launch of the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force offers another reason why this country must overhaul its immigration policy.

The task force, which includes more than 30 police chiefs, sheriffs, commissioners and other high-ranking officials, is pushing for a change in policy as a way to improve public safety, including in cities such as South Bend.

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Or, use your facebook account:

Individuals who have a print subscription of the South Bend Tribune can activate their digital account to gain unlimited access to SouthBendTribune.com.

You need the 10 digit phone number without dashes on the account and your ZIP code to complete this process.

Questions? Please write tosubscriberservices@sbtinfo.comor call our Subscriber Services Department at 574-235-6464.

Long distance (outside St. Joseph County, Ind.), call toll-free 1-800-220-7378.

Need an account? Create one now.

Read more from the original source:
OUR OPINION: Immigration reform for public safety's sake

Sen. Grassley Talks About Immigration Reform, Praises Ted Cruz
SHARK-TANK.COM Sen. Chuck Grassley praised Ted Cruz for his work in helping GOP.

By: Thesharktank1

Link:
Sen. Grassley Talks About Immigration Reform, Praises Ted Cruz - Video

Waivers Immigration Reform
Description.

By: Jennifer Oltarsh

See more here:
Waivers Immigration Reform - Video

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 Acronyms (colloquial) IRCA Nicknames SimpsonMazzoli Act Enactedby the 99th United States Congress Effective Signed into law by Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986 Citations Public Law Pub.L. 99603 Statutes at Large 100Stat.3445 Legislative history Introduced in the Senate as S. 1200 by Alan K. Simpson on May 23, 1985 Committee consideration by Senate Judiciary, Senate Budget Passed the Senate on September 19, 1985(6930) Passed the House on October 9, 1986(voice vote after incorporating H.R. 3810, passed 230166) Reported by the joint conference committee on October 14, 1986; agreed to by the House on October 15, 1986(238173) and by the Senate on October 17, 1986(6324) Signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), Pub.L. 99603, 100Stat.3445, enacted November6, 1986, also known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, signed into law by Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986, is an Act of Congress which reformed United States immigration law. The Act[1]

At the time, the Immigration and Naturalization Service estimated that about four million illegal immigrants would apply for legal status through the act and that roughly half of them would be eligible.[2]

Romano L. Mazzoli was a Democratic representative from Kentucky and Alan K. Simpson was a Republican senator from Wyoming who chaired their respective immigration subcommittees in Congress. Their effort was assisted by the recommendations of the bipartisan Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, then President of the University of Notre Dame.

The law criminalized the act of engaging in a "pattern or practice" of knowingly hiring an "unauthorized alien"[3] and established financial and other penalties for those employing illegal immigrants under the theory that low prospects for employment would reduce undocumented immigration. Regulations promulgated under the Act introduced the I-9 form to ensure that all employees presented documentary proof of their legal eligibility to accept employment in the United States.[4]

These sanctions would apply only to employers that had more than three employees and did not make a sufficient effort to determine the legal status of their workers.

The first Simpson-Mazzoli Bill was reported out of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. The bill failed to be received by the House, but civil rights advocates were concerned over the potential for abuse and discrimination against Hispanics, growers' groups rallied for additional provisions for foreign labor, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce persistently opposed sanctions against employers.

The second Simpson-Mazzoli Bill finally passed both chambers in 1985, but it came apart in the conference committee over the issue of cost. The year marked an important turning point for the reform effort. Employer opposition to employer sanctions began to subside, partly because of the "affirmative defense" clause in the law that explicitly released employers from any obligation to check the authenticity of workers' documents.

Also, agricultural employers shifted their focus from opposition to employer sanctions to a concerted campaign to secure alternative sources of foreign labor. As opposition to employer sanctions waned and growers' lobbying efforts for extensive temporary worker programs intensified, agricultural worker programs began to outrank employer sanctions component as the most controversial element of reform.

According to one study, the IRCA caused some employers to discriminate against workers who appeared foreign, resulting in a small reduction in overall Hispanic employment. There is no statistical evidence that a reduction in employment correlated to unemployment in the economy as a whole or was separate from the general unemployment population statistics.[5] Another study stated that if hired, wages were being lowered to compensate employers for the perceived risk of hiring foreigners.[6]

Visit link:
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 - Wikipedia ...