Question and Answers

Month: November 2010 (Page 1 of 3)

Texas Changes Drivers License Format For Non-Citizens : Immigration Law Answers Blog

Texas has now enacted a very controversial law requiring foreign nationals to get a different type of drivers license than that used for U.S. citizens. The license will have a vertical, rather than horizontal, orientation, so it will be instantly recognizable by anyone who sees it — including potential landlords or employers. The licenses will also be stamped with the words “temporary visitor” and will list the date the legal residency expires.

The Department of Public Safety is instructed not to issue or renew licenses for any immigrant who is here illegally, or who has overstayed his or her residency. The DPS also will not issue licenses to legal immigrants who have permission to stay for fewer than six months.

Aside from the obvious concerns about profiling, some people worry that illegal immigrants will now not be able to get auto insurance since they won’t have drivers licenses. This could increase Texas’ already extremely high percentage of drivers who do not have auto liability insurance, thereby driving up the costs of auto insurance for the rest of us.

Question: I Was Given a 10 Year Visa, Can I Stay in the U.S. the Entire 10 Years? : Immigration Law Answers Blog

Home > Temporary Visas > Question: I Was Given a 10 Year Visa, Can I Stay in the U.S. the Entire 10 Years?

Posted on July 16, 2009 by Robert A. Kraft

Answer: NO. Most individuals are not aware that a visa that is placed in a person’s passport does not determine the length of authorized stay in the United States. When a foreign national is admitted into the U.S., he or she is issued Form I-94 Arrival/Departure record. Form I-94 shows the nonimmigrant category and indicates how long the foreign national is allowed to stay in the United States.

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL

USCIS Reminds Applicants for Adjustment of Status, Asylum, Legalization, and TPS Beneficiaries to Obtain Advance Parole Before Traveling Abroad : Immigration Law Answers Blog

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) reminds individuals that they must obtain Advance Parole from USCIS before traveling abroad if they have:

    •    been granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS);

    •    a pending application for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident;

    •    a pending application for relief under section 203 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA 203);

    •    a pending asylum application; or

    •    a pending application for legalization.

Advance Parole is legal permission to reenter the United States after traveling abroad. Advance Parole is a rare and extraordinary measure used to allow an otherwise inadmissible individual to enter the United States due to compelling circumstances. Individuals requiring Advance Parole may not be allowed to enter the U.S. and may have their pending applications denied or administratively closed if they attempt to enter without Advance Parole. To obtain Advance Parole, individuals must file Form I-131 (Application for Travel Document), which is available on the USCIS website. Applicants should receive their travel document within 90 days of applying.

Please note that, under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, even if an alien who has been unlawfully present for certain periods of time obtains Advance Parole and then departs the U.S., he or she can be barred from admission to lawful permanent resident status. Further, those who are refugees or lawful permanent residents who were first refugees do not need to obtain Advance Parole. Such individuals should apply for a Refugee Travel Document using Form I-131 and comply with all USCIS requirements. However, asylum applicants, asylees, and lawful permanent residents who obtained that status based on their asylum status are subject to special rules regarding travel outside the United States. These individuals are strongly encouraged to review USCIS Fact Sheet regarding asylum and travel.

The USCIS also recommends that all individuals with pending applications for adjustment of status, NACARA 203, or asylum, consult an immigration attorney, an assistance organization accredited by the Board of Immigration Appeals, or call USCIS Customer Service Center at 1-800-375-5283 before making any travel plans.

For more information, please visit:

Notification Requirements for Employers of Religious Workers : Immigration Law Answers Blog

Posted on August 17, 2009 by Robert A. Kraft

A petitioner who sponsored a foreign national based on a temporary religious worker (R-1) visa is required to notify U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) within 14 days if the R-1 beneficiary is working less than the required number of hours, or the beneficiary was terminated before the expiration of his or her authorized stay.  

The notification must include the following information:

  • Employer’s information (name, address, telephone number, and FIEN associated with employer, if available);
  • R-1 beneficiary’s information (name, address, telephone number, and FEIN associated with employer;
  • USCIS receipt number of the approved R-1 petition.

Reason for the notification:

  • R-1 beneficiary working less than the required number of hours; or
  • R-1 beneficiary has been terminated before the authorized stay.

Employers can notify USCIS via e-mail or via letter mailed to the California Service Center. More information is available at the USCIS Web site.  

Kraft & Associates will answer your R-1 questions. Call us at 214-999-9999.

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL

BIA Decision is a Strong Reminder Not to Claim False U.S. Citizenship : Immigration Law Answers Blog

A recent Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision addressed the actions of a foreign national who simply claimed on a passport application that she had been born in Texas. In this decision, the BIA emphasized the fact that the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) strictly forbids anyone who is not a United States citizen from claiming, in any way, that he or she is a citizen.   This BIA decision serves as a strong reminder to anyone not a United States citizen that they should be very cautious not to claim, in any way, that they were born in the United States. Be aware that signing any document that says you are a citizen is the same as saying out loud that you are a citizen.   Always remain mindful that, not only is making a false representation of citizenship strictly prohibited by the Act, if you do falsely claim United States citizenship, you will be permanently barred from the United States. There are no waivers to this bar.  

Continue reading to see the decision.

  Matter of Olga BARCENAS-BARRERA, Respondent File A093 086 418 – Houston, Texas Decided June 19, 2009 U.S. Department of JusticeExecutive Office for Immigration ReviewBoard of Immigration Appeals (1) An alien who willfully and knowingly makes     a false representation of birth inthe United States on a passport application is inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) (2006), for makinga false representation of United States citizenship. (2) The respondent, who was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1542 (2006) forfalsely representing that she was born in the United States on an application for apassport, is removable under section 237(a)(1)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A)(2006), as an alien who was inadmissible at the time of her adjustment of status undersection 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. FOR RESPONDENT: Charissee L. Garza, Esquire, Bellaire, Texas FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Marilee Fong, Assistant Chief Counsel BEFORE: Board Panel: GRANT, MILLER, and MALPHRUS, Board Members. MALPHRUS, Board Member: In a decision dated March 29, 2007, an Immigration Judge found thatthe respondent is not removable under section 237(a)(1)(A) of theImmigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A) (2006), as analien who was inadmissible at the time of her adjustment of status undersection 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) (2006),because she had not falsely represented herself to be a United States citizen.1 The Immigration Judge did, however, find that the respondent was inadmissible at the time of her adjustment of status under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act, as an alien who sought to procure a United States passport by fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact.  He also granted her request for a waiver of inadmissibility under section 237(a)(1)(H) of the Act, which is available to waive the grounds of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i), but not under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii).   The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) has appealed from theImmigration Judge’s determination that the respondent was not inadmissibleunder that section. The appeal will be sustained. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The respondent is a native and citizen of Mexico. In March 2003, she applied at a United States Post Office for a United States passport,2 which she intended to give her employer as proof that she had authorization towork. She had previously provided her employer a false social securitycard and birth certificate, which the employer had rejected as invalid.  The passport application, which she signed under oath, states that she was born in“Edinburg, TX.” The respondent’s status was adjusted to that of a lawfulpermanent resident in September 2004, based on her marriage to a naturalizedUnited States citizen. In March 2006, the respondent was convicted of making a false statementon an application for a passport in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542, for which shewas sentenced to 3 years’ probation.3  Count one of the indictment to which the respondent pled guilty states that on or about March 12, 2003, she: willfully and knowingly made a false statement in an application for a passport withintent to induce and secure for her own use the issuance of a passport under theauthority of the United States, contrary to the laws regulating the issuance of suchpassports and the rules prescribed pursuant to such laws, in that in such applicationthe defendant stated that her place of birth was “Edinburg, TX,” which statement sheknew to be false. The record contains a copy of page 3 of the respondent’s passportapplication, which lists her place of birth as “Edinburg, TX.” Immediatelyabove the respondent’s signature, the application includes a warning that it 2 The Secretary of State has the authority to issue passports, which has been delegated to selected agents, including duly designated postal employees, who have the authority to accept passport applications and administer oaths in connection with such applications.  See United States v. Salinas, 373 F.3d 161, 162 (1st Cir. 2004). 3 According to 18 U.S.C. § 1542 (2006):    Whoever willfully and knowingly makes any false statement in an application for passport with intent to induce or secure the issuance of a passport under the authority of the United States, either for his own use or the use of another, contrary to the laws regulating the issuance of passports or the rules prescribed pursuant to such laws . . .    Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned . . . , or both.   should not be signed until requested to do so by the person administering theoath, as well as the following affirmation: I have not, since acquiring United States citizenship, performed any of the acts listed under “Acts or Conditions” on the reverse of this application form (unless explanatory statement is attached).  I solemnly swear (or affirm) that the statements made on this application are true and the photograph attached is a true likeness of me. (Emphasis added.) II. ANALYSIS The DHS argues that clear and convincing evidence establishes thatthe respondent is removable under section 237(a)(1)(A) of the Act becauseshe was inadmissible at the time of her adjustment of status undersection 212(a)(6)(C)(ii). With a limited exception not applicable in this case,that section provides for the inadmissibility of “[a]ny alien who falselyrepresents, or has falsely represented, himself or herself to be a citizen of theUnited States for any purpose or benefit under this Act (includingsection 274A) or any other Federal or State law.” Section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) ofthe Act. We agree with the DHS that the respondent was inadmissible undersection 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act at the time of her adjustment of status,because the record contains clear and convincing evidence establishing thatshe falsely represented herself to be a United States citizen for the purpose ofobtaining a benefit under the Act or any other Federal or State law. This provision is broadly defined and encompasses the respondent’s representationon her passport application that she was born in Texas. It is undisputed thatthe respondent signed the application, and the Immigration Judge found thatshe willfully misrepresented on the application that she was born in Texas.  As noted above, by signing the passport application the respondent affirmed thatshe had “acquir[ed] United States citizenship.” Moreover, the respondent’s conviction establishes that she willfully andknowingly provided the false information regarding her place of birth onthe passport application. See, e.g., United States v. George, 386 F.3d 383, 389 (2d Cir. 2004) (holding that a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1542 requiresthat a defendant has provided in a passport application information that he orshe knows to be false); United States v. Suarez-Rosario, 237 F.3d 1164, 1167 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating that “under the terms of 18 U.S.C. § 1542, thegovernment must prove that the defendant made a willful and knowing falsestatement in an application for a passport or made a willful and knowing useof a passport secured by a false statement”).  The fact that the respondent pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 1542 precludes her from claiming that she didnot knowingly submit false information to obtain a passport.  See Rodriguez   v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d 60, 65 (2d Cir. 2006) (determining that an alien whopled guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542 was inadmissible undersection 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and was therefore precluded from receivingadjustment of status); see also Pichardo v. INS, 216 F.3d 1198, 1201 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 911 for making a falseclaim of United States citizenship established an independent ground for thealien’s inadmissibility under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act).4 We disagree with the Immigration Judge’s conclusion that the respondent’sfalse representation on a passport application that she was born in Texas doesnot amount to a claim to be a United States citizen because a noncitizen national can apply for and receive a passport. While a national may be eligible for a passport, see 22 C.F.R. §§ 51.1(l), 51.2(a) (2009), the respondent neverclaimed to be a “national,” a term that has historically “referred only tononcitizens born in territories of the United States.” Fernandez v. Keisler, 502 F.3d 337, 349 (4th Cir. 2007); see also Matter of Navas-Acosta, 23 I&N Dec. 586, 587 (BIA 2003). See generally sections 101(a)(22), 308 of the Act,8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(22), 1408 (2006). The respondent claimed to have beenborn in Texas, not in a territory. The Fourteenth Amendment to theUnited States Constitution provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized inthe United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of theUnited States and of the State wherein they reside.”5 Therefore the 4 We recognize that in United States v. Karaouni, 379 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2004), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a defendant’s criminal conviction for making a false claim to United States citizenship under 18 U.S.C. § 911, where the sole evidence was that he checked a box on an employment form indicating that he was a “citizen or national of the United States.”  However, Karaouni is distinguishable from this case, in part because it involved a criminal statute that carries the higher burden of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  See Theodros v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 396, 401 n.7 (5th Cir. 2007). 5 We note that a person born in the United States is both a citizen and national of the United States at birth unless the individual is not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Section 301(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a) (2006).  This limited exception refers generally to individuals born to foreign diplomats or to enemies within the United States during a hostile occupation of part of the territory of the United States. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 473-74 (1898). There is no basis to include the respondent within this very narrow group, and even if there were, such an individual is not a citizen or national and is therefore not eligible to receive a United States passport. See 22 C.F.R. §§ 51.1(l), 51.2(a) (providing that a passport may be issued only to a United States citizen or a noncitizen national).   respondent’s statement on her passport application that she was born in Texaswould not be consistent with a claim to be a noncitizen national.   Section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act applies to misrepresentations committedfor any purpose or benefit under the Act or any other Federal or State law.Obtaining a United States passport is clearly a benefit within the scope of thissection. A passport affords the bearer the benefit of being able to leave andenter the United States. See Jamieson v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 765, 768 (8th Cir.2005) (holding that obtaining entry to the United States by claiming to be acitizen of this country is a “benefit” under the Act); cf. section 215(b) of theAct, 8 U.S.C. § 1185(b) (2006) (requiring a United States citizen to have avalid passport to depart from or enter the United States unless otherwiseprovided). A United States passport would also have allowed the respondentto maintain employment in this country, which is the reason she applied for it.6 Further, possession of a valid United States passport is a sufficient basis initself to terminate immigration proceedings.  See Matter of Villanueva, 19 I&N Dec. 101, 103 (BIA 1984) (finding that a valid United States passport issuedto an individual as a citizen of the United States constitutes conclusive proofof that person’s citizenship unless the passport is void on its face). Thus, a passport is clearly a “benefit” under the immigration laws, both as proof ofUnited States citizenship and as a means to enter and be employed in this country. We find by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent isremovable under section 237(a)(1)(A) as an alien who was inadmissible at thetime of her adjustment of status under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.Section 237(a)(1)(H) of the Act does not waive inadmissibility undersection 212(a)(6)(C)(ii). Nor has the respondent applied for or established hereligibility for any other form of relief from removal.  Accordingly, the DHS’sappeal will be sustained, and the respondent will be ordered removed from theUnited States. ORDER: The appeal of the Department of Homeland Security is sustained. FURTHER ORDER:  The respondent is ordered removed from the United States to Mexico. 6 Section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) specifically contemplates including as a “benefit” under the Act those benefits available pursuant to section 274A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1324a (2006), which relates to alien employment.  

Revised Form I-601 to Waive Inadmissible Grounds Under the Immigration and Nationality Act : Immigration Law Answers Blog

Certain foreign nationals who seek to be admitted into the United States or adjust their status in the United States are unable to do so if acts, convictions, or medical conditions make them inadmissible.  There are several grounds listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that make a foreign national inadmissible to the United States. The following are grounds for inadmissibility:       

  • health-related grounds
  • certain criminal and related grounds
  • Immigrant Membership in a Totalitarian Party
  • Immigration fraud or misrepresentation
  • Smugglers
  • Being Subject to Civil Penalty
  • Unlawful presence in the U.S. for more than 180 days, beginning on or after April 1, 1997, followed by departure if the U.S. – three or ten year bar
  • Aliens previously removed and unlawfully present after previous immigration violation (only for NACARA or HRIFA adjustment application)
  • unlawfully present after previous immigration violations for VAWA self-petitioners

In order to waive these inadmissibility grounds, the foreign national must file Form I-601 Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility. Beginning November 21, 2009, waiver applicants must file revised Form I-601 as U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will not accept the prior version beginning on that day.

The revised form will be marked with Revision Date 04/06/09N, OMB Expiration Date 04/30/11. The revised form makes it easier for waiver applicants to select from a list of grounds of inadmissibility. In addition to the list of grounds, there is a section that allows applicants to describe in their own words why they believe they are inadmissible. For additional information on waivers, grounds of inadmissibility or any other aspect of immigration law please call Kraft & Associates at 214-999-9999. Additional information is also available at

Don't Try To Use A B-1/B-2 Tourist Visa If You Plan To Become A Student : Immigration Law Answers Blog

Attorney Eugenia Ponce recently had a telephonic consultation with a client who wanted to enter the United States on a B-1/B-2 tourist visa to visit various universities throughout the United States and to attend admissions interviews. He wanted to know what the student visa requirements were and whether he would face any challenges if he tried to obtain his student visa while in the United States on a tourist visa.

Ms. Ponce explained that foreign nationals seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of studying in the United States will need to apply for an F-1 study visa in their home country. The fact that he wanted to enter the United States to visit schools (for tourism) rather than to study, should be disclosed to the consular officer so that the officer could note “prospective student” on his I-94 card when admitted into the United States.

Ms. Ponce continued by explaining that the sole purpose of the tourist visa is to visit for a short period of time, and that is all. The tourist visa cannot be used if the person has the intention to work or to study. There is a specific visa for individuals seeking to enter the United States to pursue a full-time course of study. That is an F-1 student visa. Since B-1/B-2 visitors are not allowed to pursue a course of study, any change of status applications could be denied if it is found that the foreign national intended to enter the United States to study, and this preconceived intent was not previously disclosed.

Once accepted to a study program, it is recommended that the foreign national return to his or her home country to obtain an F-1 visa stamp. The F-1 visa is issued no earlier than four months prior to the study program’s start date.

Once the F-1 visa is issued, the international student will enter the United States and will be admitted for as long as the F-1 student continues the study program requirements. Essentially, an F-1 student will be admitted for “duration of status” or “D/S” and this will be reflected on the I-94 card.

For more information on the F-1 student visa process please call Kraft & Associates at 214-999-9999.

Texas Prison System First in Nation to Partner With ICE to Identify and Remove Criminal Aliens : Immigration Law Answers Blog

Until now, new inmates booked into the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) prison system had their fingerprints checked only for criminal history information. But now, each new inmate booked into the Huntsville, Texas, intake site will now also have his or her fingerprints checked by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) biometric system for any immigration record.

The TDCJ prison system is the first in the United States to partner with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in this new program, called Secure Communities. This comprehensive program is intended to streamline the process by which ICE determines if the screened inmate is a criminal alien, subject to automatic removal after the inmate completes his or her prison term. Highest priority is given to inmate aliens who have been convicted of crimes such as rape, robbery, murder, kidnapping, and major drug offenses.

Eventually all 24 intake sites in Texas will have the same capability to screen inmates’ immigration history. ICE currently partners with 50 counties and law enforcement agencies across the nation in the Secure Communities program, and looks to expand the program to all law enforcement agencies throughout the United States.

More information about ICE’s Secure Communities effort is available at Additional information about TDCJ’s partnership with ICE may be found at:

Obama Pledges to Work on Immigration : Immigration Law Answers Blog

Obama also told the lawmakers that he will travel next month to Mexico to discuss immigration and escalating violence from drug cartels with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, White House officials said.

During the campaign, Obama supported a comprehensive overhaul of immigration policy, including creation of a possible path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who are otherwise law-abiding.

Obama has yet to tackle the issue, as his administration has grappled with the economic crisis and an increasingly crowded agenda in his two months in office.

But immigration legislation is on the agenda and moving forward, said Hispanic lawmakers who attended the West Wing meeting. The caucus consists of Democrats and one independent.

Obama told the group that he will work on immigration in a method similar to other major policy initiatives. There will be a public forum on immigration, possibly within the next two months, to unveil key principles of overhaul legislation.

Five Deal-Breakers in Arizona's New Immigration Law : Immigration Law Answers Blog

 Miami Herald columnist Andres Oppenheimer has an interesting take on the new anti-immigrant bill passed in Arizona. Here are excerpts from his column: 

Now that Arizona has enacted the most xenophobic anti-immigration law in this country, get ready for the big Hispanic exodus.

But it won’t be an exodus back to Mexico or to Central America. It will be a stampede toward Miami, Los Angeles, Chicago and other cities with huge Hispanic populations, where Latinos will be able to live without fear of being stopped by police because of the color of their skin or for speaking Spanish.

According to a bill passed by the Arizona legislature and signed into law Friday, police officers would have to arrest anyone when they have “reasonable suspicion” that the person does not have valid immigration papers. And it would allow anyone to sue local or state officials who they believe aren’t carrying out the law.

There are five major reasons why this Nazi-era-reminiscent legislation should be stopped in Arizona and kept from being copied by other states.

First, it won’t stop undocumented immigrants from coming to the United States. As long as the U.S. per capita income is more than three times higher than Mexico’s — $46,400 vs. $13,500, to be precise — Mexicans and other Latin Americans will continue crossing the border one way or another.

Second, it will not make Arizona safer. On the contrary, it will divert police resources away from fighting crime and will compel undocumented immigrants — as well as U.S.-born Hispanics who won’t want to be hassled by police — not to report crimes.

But the Arizona Police Chiefs Association and others opposed the measure, saying it will drain law enforcement resources and prevent witnesses from stepping forward. By the same token, U.S. authorities in 2007 publicly honored 26-year-old undocumented immigrant Manuel Jesus Cordova for rescuing a 9-year-old whose mother had died in an accident. Would Cordova do so under the new law?

Third, it will hurt Arizona’s economy. The new law is likely to be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional, but only after long and costly legal battles.

In addition, a flight of many of the estimated 470,000 undocumented Latinos from Arizona and the closing of some of the more than 35,000 Hispanic-owned businesses in the state will drain the state’s already ailing finances.

Fourth, if more U.S. states follow Arizona’s lead, there may be a Latin American tourism backlash. Many of the more than 13 million Mexicans, 2.5 million South Americans and 860,000 Central Americans who travel to the United States every year may think twice before visiting a country where they may be stopped by police just because of the color of their skin or the language they speak.

Fifth, and perhaps most important, the law is morally wrong and profoundly un-American. The United States, despite the decline of its international image immediately after the Iraq War, is once again being seen positively by a majority of countries, according to a BBC poll released last week. Racial profiling laws would no doubt hurt the U.S. image abroad.

My opinion: Arizona’s new law is not only legally dubious, economically counterproductive and morally repugnant, but it will do nothing to solve the U.S. immigration crisis. The solution is for the Obama administration to push for its much-promised immigration reform this year. That would help both secure the borders and give a path to legalization to more than 10 million undocumented immigrants. Otherwise, headline-seeking local politicians in other states will seek to fill the vacuum with similarly xenophobic laws, with not much more effect than producing a big Hispanic exodus — within the United States.

« Older posts

© 2022 Immigration Law

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑