RI Family Court Lawyer Alves found the following article regarding the current appointment of several judges in RI by Governor Carcieri interesting and posts it in its entirety below.
Rhode Island judges being sworn in at fast clip
Dec 14, 2010
Katie Mulvaney
PROVIDENCE, R.I.-- By the year's end, Rhode Island's newest judges will be ready to take the bench after a series of open- and closed-door swearing-in ceremonies.
At several incoming judges' requests, Governor Carcieri has held private swearing-in ceremonies in his office, according to his spokeswoman Amy Kempe. Others have opted for public ceremonies in the State Room at the State House.
Colleen M. Hastings was the first. The governor swore in Hastings the very day the state Senate approved her nomination as a District Court judge. Hastings requested the hasty ceremony so her son could witness the event before being deployed, Kempe said.
Carcieri chose Hastings, a Family Court magistrate since 2008, to replace Judge Michael A. Higgins, who retired this year. Once an assistant city solicitor in Newport, Hastings served as assistant legal counsel to then-Senate Majority Leader M. Teresa Paiva Weed from 2006 to 2008.
The governor swore in District Court Magistrate Christine S. Jabour as a District Court judge in a private ceremony in his office Dec. 8, Kempe said. Jabour replaces Stephen E. Erickson, who retired in June after 20 years on the bench.
Jabour, of Barrington, has worked as a District Court magistrate since 2003. She is a sister of Sen. Paul V. Jabour, D-Providence, and is married to former Judicial Nominating Commission Chairman Girard R. Visconti.
Walter R. Stone was sworn in privately the same day to replace O. Rogeriee Thompson on the Superior Court bench. A former prosecutor who once ran for state attorney general, Stone, of Providence, has practiced law for 35 years and was a partner at Adler, Pollock & Sheehan.
Two days later, the governor swore in Haiganush R. Bedrosian as chief of the state's Family Court. Bedrosian, who is the first woman to lead the court, has been served on Family Court since 1980.
A public ceremony with 700 guests will take place for Bedrosian at 3 p.m., Friday, at Warwick City Hall, Kempe said.
Stephen M. Isherwood's swearing in as District Court judge took place at 3 p.m. Tuesday in a public ceremony in the State Room. Isherwood fills the seat left open when Jeanne E. LaFazia became chief judge of the District Court. Isherwood has been a Probate Court judge in Warwick since 2005. He has worked at a Cranston law firm since 1994.
Narragansett lawyer Brian Van Couyghen will be sworn in Dec. 21 in a private ceremony to fill the Superior Court seat once held by Supreme Court Judge Gilbert V. Indeglia. Van Couyghen has served as legislative counsel to the state House of Representatives and the state Senate since 2001. He has been a trial lawyer since 1984.
Van Couyghen is Carcieri's wife Suzanne's brother's wife's first cousin, Kempe said.
And finally, Sarah Taft-Carter will be sworn in as a Superior Court judge at a public event in the State Room at 3:30 p.m. that same day, Kempe said. Taft-Carter will take the seat held by Alice B. Gibney before Gibney became presiding justice of the Superior Court. She is daughter of a former Cranston mayor, James L. Taft Jr., and is a partner with Taft & McSally LLP in Cranston.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Divorce, Immigration, or Estate Law in RI or MA contact Massachusetts and Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer Rui P. Alves at 401-942-3100 or CONTACT him via email.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Friday, December 10, 2010
Undocumented Students Aim of Recent Immigration Reform
RI Immigration Attorney posts recent article regarding Immigration reform in the United States and what this means for those who are students here in this country. The article discusses the proposed reform that would allow hundreds of thousands of undocumented students in this country to remain to finish their educations.
The full article follows below.
Vote on DREAM Act is scheduled soon
December 8, 2010
While Democrats struggle to find enough votes to make a federal immigration reform bill a reality, members of the Immigrants Coalition of Inland Southern California gathered on the steps of San Bernardino City Hall last week to urge local elected officials to support a proposal that would legalize hundreds of thousands of undocumented students.
Despite the fact that the proposed bill faces long odds, supporters hope the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM Act) will pass in order to allow thousands of people who arrived to the United States as minors a path to legalization and eventual naturalization.
"We call for Congress not to betray the hopes and dreams of thousands of young people across the nation who are counting on their support," said Emilio Amaya, executive director at the San Bernardino Community Services Center.
Supporters of the DREAM Act also ask legislators to not support amendments that would deny young permanent residents or citizens the right to petition for family members, deny them in-state-tuition, and mandate the use of E-verify, a "flawed and costly system which would cause numerous workers, immigrant and non-immigrant alike to lose their jobs."
"We expect our senators and members of Congress to do everything in their power to move the DREAM Act forward in its present form, without amendments that would harm thousands of families and exacerbate the pain caused by an already broken immigration system," said Moises Escalante, chairman of the Coalition.
Many Republicans and some Democrats have opposed the DREAM Act, saying it would amount of amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Among the estimated 825,000 persons that would benefit from the DREAM Act is 23-year-old Veronica Briones, who arrived in the United States 20 years ago together with her mother as they escaped a violent and abusive father from Mexico.
Briones, a Riverside Community College student, is one of 553,000 possible candidates who live in California. A mother of a little girl, Briones hopes government gives her an opportunity to demonstrate her loyalty to the nation by allowing her to finish her upper education.
"Let us demonstrate that we are here to work and be good citizens. Let us demonstrate that we are not criminals, as some people portray us. Give us the chance and we would use it to finish school. We could be the next doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers, nurses, and teachers," Briones pledged to both the Senate and House of Representatives. "Don't close the doors on us ... don't kill our dreams."
The DREAM Act has some support in the House but faces a much bigger hurdle at the Senate, where, as of Dec. 7, it did not have the 60 votes required to pass.
According to reports, the Senate was set to vote on it on Wednesday. If the bill is signed into law by President Barack Obama, who supports it, it would allow legalization and a path to naturalization to those undocumented residents who either attend or enlist in the military; those who arrived to this country before the age of 16 and are under 35; and those who can demonstrate good moral standing.
While some people call the DREAM Act a form of amnesty that would drain government funds and throw American students who are citizens off universities and colleges, others see it as a way to bolster the economy. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke said on a letter to Congress that the DREAM Act would allow current students to fulfill their goals in life and possibly create the new Google or Intel.
Local legislators, including Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands) and Mary Bono Mack (R-Palm Springs), among others, will not vote in favor of the DREAM Act as it stands, their offices said. Other legislators, such as David Dreier (R-San Dimas), have not announced a decision yet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Divorce, Immigration, or Estate Law in RI or MA contact Massachusetts and Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer Rui P. Alves at 401-942-3100 or CONTACT him via email.
The full article follows below.
Vote on DREAM Act is scheduled soon
December 8, 2010
While Democrats struggle to find enough votes to make a federal immigration reform bill a reality, members of the Immigrants Coalition of Inland Southern California gathered on the steps of San Bernardino City Hall last week to urge local elected officials to support a proposal that would legalize hundreds of thousands of undocumented students.
Despite the fact that the proposed bill faces long odds, supporters hope the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM Act) will pass in order to allow thousands of people who arrived to the United States as minors a path to legalization and eventual naturalization.
"We call for Congress not to betray the hopes and dreams of thousands of young people across the nation who are counting on their support," said Emilio Amaya, executive director at the San Bernardino Community Services Center.
Supporters of the DREAM Act also ask legislators to not support amendments that would deny young permanent residents or citizens the right to petition for family members, deny them in-state-tuition, and mandate the use of E-verify, a "flawed and costly system which would cause numerous workers, immigrant and non-immigrant alike to lose their jobs."
"We expect our senators and members of Congress to do everything in their power to move the DREAM Act forward in its present form, without amendments that would harm thousands of families and exacerbate the pain caused by an already broken immigration system," said Moises Escalante, chairman of the Coalition.
Many Republicans and some Democrats have opposed the DREAM Act, saying it would amount of amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Among the estimated 825,000 persons that would benefit from the DREAM Act is 23-year-old Veronica Briones, who arrived in the United States 20 years ago together with her mother as they escaped a violent and abusive father from Mexico.
Briones, a Riverside Community College student, is one of 553,000 possible candidates who live in California. A mother of a little girl, Briones hopes government gives her an opportunity to demonstrate her loyalty to the nation by allowing her to finish her upper education.
"Let us demonstrate that we are here to work and be good citizens. Let us demonstrate that we are not criminals, as some people portray us. Give us the chance and we would use it to finish school. We could be the next doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers, nurses, and teachers," Briones pledged to both the Senate and House of Representatives. "Don't close the doors on us ... don't kill our dreams."
The DREAM Act has some support in the House but faces a much bigger hurdle at the Senate, where, as of Dec. 7, it did not have the 60 votes required to pass.
According to reports, the Senate was set to vote on it on Wednesday. If the bill is signed into law by President Barack Obama, who supports it, it would allow legalization and a path to naturalization to those undocumented residents who either attend or enlist in the military; those who arrived to this country before the age of 16 and are under 35; and those who can demonstrate good moral standing.
While some people call the DREAM Act a form of amnesty that would drain government funds and throw American students who are citizens off universities and colleges, others see it as a way to bolster the economy. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke said on a letter to Congress that the DREAM Act would allow current students to fulfill their goals in life and possibly create the new Google or Intel.
Local legislators, including Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands) and Mary Bono Mack (R-Palm Springs), among others, will not vote in favor of the DREAM Act as it stands, their offices said. Other legislators, such as David Dreier (R-San Dimas), have not announced a decision yet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Divorce, Immigration, or Estate Law in RI or MA contact Massachusetts and Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer Rui P. Alves at 401-942-3100 or CONTACT him via email.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Divorce Facts You May Not Like to Hear
Staying married and working on your relationship is easier than getting divorced.
In most cases, this fact is true. If you and your spouse have children, this particular fact can be considered the truest of them all, because even if you are both able to rise above your differences and work together for the benefit of the children, they will still be affected by the split.
And in almost every instance, men remarry within 1 to 3 years following a divorce, and women within 5 years, if at all. In each case, parties stated that if they’d known how difficult the divorce process would be, financially and emotionally, they would have worked a lot harder at their marriage and made the changes to stay together.
Remember, whatever you refuse to deal with in your marriage, will still be there after your divorce. You will have to look at it, and deal with it, before you can have another relationship with someone new anyway. Why not make the attempt to change what needs changing and see what happens before giving up completely? If you and your partner can obtain counseling before the marriage is at the point of no return, do so.
You are going to have to consider selling the house.
This is true more often than people realize, and depending upon what state you live in, the Court may even order that the marital domicile be sold with the proceeds split; particularly if one spouse cannot buy out the other in equity.
If you and your spouse can come to an agreement that the Judge will allow, and you can each afford to maintain an adequate and comfortable lifestyle both for yourselves and any children involved, you may be able to work something out that allows one party to stay in the house (typically with the children), while the other helps with mortgage payments until the remaining spouse is able to either obtain their own mortgage or come up with an equity payment to give the other partner.
It is very rare for a Judge to both award the house and children to one spouse and require the other spouse to pay the mortgage and child support as well. If you cannot afford to keep the house on one paycheck and still live comfortably, you are going to have to sell the house.
You will go to jail for failure to pay child support.
There are a lot of people out there falling on hard times between unemployment and dwindling jobs in certain areas of the country. If you have a court order that states you must pay a certain amount of child support to your spouse, or if your support is court ordered to be removed from your wages, and you fail to pay in either instance, you will be in contempt of court.
In the situation where the amount is simply paid to your former spouse, you can, perhaps, work out an agreement that will not require court intervention to allow you to pay a smaller amount every week, and catch up at a time when you are in a better position to do so.
However, if you have a garnishment, or your payment goes directly through the court, if you do not file a motion with the court to reduce or suspend your child support during periods of unemployment, you will create an arrearage of back support that will need to be paid or you will be arrested and put in jail until you are able to pay. When the court discovers that your payments have not been made, they will issue a warrant, and you will be arrested for non-payment of child support.
Getting Both Alimony and Child Support is a Dwindling Statistic
This is another true statement. In almost 85% of divorce cases, alimony, or spousal support, is not awarded. And if you are receiving child support payments, you can expect the amount you might receive to be reduced by that amount as well.
There are some exceptions of course. In cases where a wife has put a husband through school for instance, or has stayed home to care for children in a marriage of at least 10 years, the wife will have a chance of collecting some alimony. That is, at least until she can re-enter the workforce full-time or retrain with new skills. And if she has paid his way through school, and has proof, she will be reimbursed in almost every instance for her contribution to his education, whether there are children in the marriage or not.
With the cost of living being so high, and so many women not even receiving full and regular child support payments, alimony has become a definite ‘luxury’ item decision in divorce cases involving minor children. The Court’s stance seems to be, everyone can work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Divorce, Immigration, or Estate Law in RI or MA contact Massachusetts and Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer Rui P. Alves at 401-942-3100 or CONTACT him via email.
In most cases, this fact is true. If you and your spouse have children, this particular fact can be considered the truest of them all, because even if you are both able to rise above your differences and work together for the benefit of the children, they will still be affected by the split.
And in almost every instance, men remarry within 1 to 3 years following a divorce, and women within 5 years, if at all. In each case, parties stated that if they’d known how difficult the divorce process would be, financially and emotionally, they would have worked a lot harder at their marriage and made the changes to stay together.
Remember, whatever you refuse to deal with in your marriage, will still be there after your divorce. You will have to look at it, and deal with it, before you can have another relationship with someone new anyway. Why not make the attempt to change what needs changing and see what happens before giving up completely? If you and your partner can obtain counseling before the marriage is at the point of no return, do so.
You are going to have to consider selling the house.
This is true more often than people realize, and depending upon what state you live in, the Court may even order that the marital domicile be sold with the proceeds split; particularly if one spouse cannot buy out the other in equity.
If you and your spouse can come to an agreement that the Judge will allow, and you can each afford to maintain an adequate and comfortable lifestyle both for yourselves and any children involved, you may be able to work something out that allows one party to stay in the house (typically with the children), while the other helps with mortgage payments until the remaining spouse is able to either obtain their own mortgage or come up with an equity payment to give the other partner.
It is very rare for a Judge to both award the house and children to one spouse and require the other spouse to pay the mortgage and child support as well. If you cannot afford to keep the house on one paycheck and still live comfortably, you are going to have to sell the house.
You will go to jail for failure to pay child support.
There are a lot of people out there falling on hard times between unemployment and dwindling jobs in certain areas of the country. If you have a court order that states you must pay a certain amount of child support to your spouse, or if your support is court ordered to be removed from your wages, and you fail to pay in either instance, you will be in contempt of court.
In the situation where the amount is simply paid to your former spouse, you can, perhaps, work out an agreement that will not require court intervention to allow you to pay a smaller amount every week, and catch up at a time when you are in a better position to do so.
However, if you have a garnishment, or your payment goes directly through the court, if you do not file a motion with the court to reduce or suspend your child support during periods of unemployment, you will create an arrearage of back support that will need to be paid or you will be arrested and put in jail until you are able to pay. When the court discovers that your payments have not been made, they will issue a warrant, and you will be arrested for non-payment of child support.
Getting Both Alimony and Child Support is a Dwindling Statistic
This is another true statement. In almost 85% of divorce cases, alimony, or spousal support, is not awarded. And if you are receiving child support payments, you can expect the amount you might receive to be reduced by that amount as well.
There are some exceptions of course. In cases where a wife has put a husband through school for instance, or has stayed home to care for children in a marriage of at least 10 years, the wife will have a chance of collecting some alimony. That is, at least until she can re-enter the workforce full-time or retrain with new skills. And if she has paid his way through school, and has proof, she will be reimbursed in almost every instance for her contribution to his education, whether there are children in the marriage or not.
With the cost of living being so high, and so many women not even receiving full and regular child support payments, alimony has become a definite ‘luxury’ item decision in divorce cases involving minor children. The Court’s stance seems to be, everyone can work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Divorce, Immigration, or Estate Law in RI or MA contact Massachusetts and Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer Rui P. Alves at 401-942-3100 or CONTACT him via email.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Immigration Reform and the US Food Supply
RI Immigration Attorney Rui P. Alves found this article regarding the current surge of Immigration reform and the eventual part these new guidelines will play in closing businesses across the country as workers are determined to be illegally in the country and are deported from the US.
With the least insight of all, the ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) department is sweeping through agricultural businesses imposing fines and firing employees, and causing hardship, destruction of lives, and the possibility of food production and supply issues in the future.
The full article follows below.
Special report: Aggressive crackdowns on illegal immigration can backfire if they hurt business
Lesson learned: Don't upset business
By CHRIS COLLINS
The Fresno Bee
Brian Poulsen fought on the front lines of America's war against illegal immigration for three decades. He patrolled the border near San Diego on horseback, grew a ragged beard to disguise himself as a human smuggler, arrested and deported thousands of illegal immigrants, and tracked down fake document vendors at local flea markets.
His job description was clear: Do everything you can to stop illegal immigrants from coming and kick them out if they get here.
But Poulsen and other agents have discovered it's not easy to enforce immigration laws -- especially those that target employers.
Aggressive crackdowns can backfire if they hurt business. A sweep of Midwestern meatpacking plants in the late 1990s, for example, prompted outrage from business and civic leaders. Immigration officials have learned to tread lightly.
Poulsen, who retired this year as the top immigration enforcement official in the central San Joaquin Valley, tried to strike a balance between stopping illegal immigration and protecting farmers' interests. His office rarely conducted audits, never issued a fine and avoided messy, high-profile raids that would permanently shut down a business and separate families.
"There's a little bit of a tightrope. I understand where the farmers are coming from," said Poulsen, who grew up harvesting potatoes in Idaho. "You don't want to see people go out of business, but at the same time, we're sworn to do a job and can't look the other way."
Things may be changing: The Obama administration has stepped up the pace of audits, which are less likely to spark a backlash than workplace raids. For example, of 16 audits conducted in the central San Joaquin Valley over the past eight years, 11 have come since late 2008.
Some agriculture leaders in the Valley are worried about the audits, which can hurt businesses by making them fire all their illegal workers.
But government figures show that the new effort is tame compared to the early 1990s, when immigration officials fined about 900 companies a year and audited thousands. This year, they fined 237.
Many experts say aggressively cracking down on employers will rid the nation of illegal immigrants. Because the vast majority of them come here to work, America would be a much less appealing destination without job opportunities.
But advocates for stricter enforcement say there is little political appetite to sever the co-dependent relationship between businesses and illegal immigrants.
And aggressive enforcement, agents have learned, can backfire.
In the late 1990s, in response to calls for tougher enforcement, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service -- which later became Immigration and Customs Enforcement -- blanketed Midwestern meat-packing companies with audits that identified thousands of employees suspected of being illegal immigrants.
Frightened workers left in droves, slowing slaughter-line speeds to a crawl and hurting farmers who relied on the meat-packing businesses.
"All hell broke loose," said Mark Reed, a former top INS official who was in charge of the crackdown, dubbed Operation Vanguard. "All of a sudden, these communities that wanted these people out of there realized that they needed them.
They didn't realize that the kids who played on their soccer teams and the people they went to church with were going to go. They didn't realize that they were the center of their economy." Nebraska's governor and members of Congress intervened. Operation Vanguard -- which was scheduled to expand to the rest of the country -- was nipped in the bud.
During the waning years of the Bush administration, immigration agents grabbed headlines by raiding companies and deporting workers. The raids across the country drew controversy, just as Operation Vanguard did a decade earlier.
The Obama administration decided to take a different approach.
In April 2009, ICE issued a memo that downplayed the importance of raids, noting that they did little to prove that employers knowingly hired illegal immigrants.
Instead, it hired scores of auditors and directed them to build cases against businesses. If an audit shows that a business employed illegal immigrants, the owner must fire them to avoid fines of up to $3,200 for each illegal worker -- or prison time.
In 2006, ICE spent just 2 percent of its staff time on worksite enforcement, and not a single company was fined for hiring illegal immigrants. This year, it audited 2,196 businesses and fined 237.
Still, ICE spent only about 5 percent of its staff time on worksite enforcement through April -- less than a fourth of the time it spent on drug smuggling.
Manuel Cunha, president of the Fresno-based Nisei Farmers League, an association of agriculture businesses in the Western U.S., said ICE audited four growers in his association last year, forcing them to fire many of their workers. He described it as a farmer's "worst nightmare." "It was like Satan came to their door and said, 'We're taking your children because you know what? Your children sinned,'" Cunha said. "These farmers knew these workers. They were part of their community. They were part of their families. You yank them out, what does that do to that industry? To those farmers? To those workers?"
Mike Saqui, a Sacramento immigration attorney for businesses, said an audit can be destructive for businesses. One client who was audited in the middle of harvest-time last year had to fire 269 of his 280 field workers.
If ICE wanted to use audits to get agriculture employers' attention, it worked. Cunha said growers worry about audits "every day now." Yet some doubt the administration's audit strategy will succeed.
Reed, the former INS official who now runs an immigration consultant firm in Tucson, Ariz., said ICE should take a more comprehensive strategy and audit all companies in a region in the same industry instead of its current "hodgepodge" approach. Otherwise, he said, businesses will continue to hire illegal immigrants because they believe there's little risk of an audit.
Philip Martin, an immigration and farm labor expert at the University of California, Davis, said another question is whether the administration will follow its strategy consistently.
"So far, it hasn't been sustained long enough for it to have a significant effect," he said. "That's the big question: Is it going to be sustained?" Audits aren't the only thing employers are worried about. Immigration officials are deporting illegal immigrants -- many of them working for farmers or construction companies -- at a record pace. In the 2009-10 fiscal year, they deported 393,000 -- almost twice as many as four years earlier.
Much of the focus has been on deporting illegal immigrants suspected or convicted of crimes. But others often are swept up in such efforts.
That is what happened in Mendota during a February 2007 raid that was criticized by some local officials. Mendota officials said it took residents about a year to recover and the local economy suffered. Former Fresno mayor Alan Autry criticized ICE for being "mind-boggling in its callousness." Erik Bonnar, the deputy field office director who supervises deportations in the San Joaquin Valley, said agents couldn't ignore the fact that some residents were illegal immigrants.
"If our officers determine that they're here illegally, then they'll take them into custody," he said.
More recently, ICE started a program in 2007 called Secure Communities that has attracted growing attention. It uses fingerprints to determine whether jail inmates are illegal immigrants, which often leads to their deportation.
Fresno, Tulare and Merced counties joined the rapidly expanding program this year. Because of jail overcrowding, however, many illegal immigrants arrested for misdemeanor crimes are not booked in jail.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Divorce, Immigration, or Estate Law in RI or MA contact Massachusetts and Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer Rui P. Alves at 401-942-3100 or CONTACT him via email.
With the least insight of all, the ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) department is sweeping through agricultural businesses imposing fines and firing employees, and causing hardship, destruction of lives, and the possibility of food production and supply issues in the future.
The full article follows below.
Special report: Aggressive crackdowns on illegal immigration can backfire if they hurt business
Lesson learned: Don't upset business
By CHRIS COLLINS
The Fresno Bee
Brian Poulsen fought on the front lines of America's war against illegal immigration for three decades. He patrolled the border near San Diego on horseback, grew a ragged beard to disguise himself as a human smuggler, arrested and deported thousands of illegal immigrants, and tracked down fake document vendors at local flea markets.
His job description was clear: Do everything you can to stop illegal immigrants from coming and kick them out if they get here.
But Poulsen and other agents have discovered it's not easy to enforce immigration laws -- especially those that target employers.
Aggressive crackdowns can backfire if they hurt business. A sweep of Midwestern meatpacking plants in the late 1990s, for example, prompted outrage from business and civic leaders. Immigration officials have learned to tread lightly.
Poulsen, who retired this year as the top immigration enforcement official in the central San Joaquin Valley, tried to strike a balance between stopping illegal immigration and protecting farmers' interests. His office rarely conducted audits, never issued a fine and avoided messy, high-profile raids that would permanently shut down a business and separate families.
"There's a little bit of a tightrope. I understand where the farmers are coming from," said Poulsen, who grew up harvesting potatoes in Idaho. "You don't want to see people go out of business, but at the same time, we're sworn to do a job and can't look the other way."
Things may be changing: The Obama administration has stepped up the pace of audits, which are less likely to spark a backlash than workplace raids. For example, of 16 audits conducted in the central San Joaquin Valley over the past eight years, 11 have come since late 2008.
Some agriculture leaders in the Valley are worried about the audits, which can hurt businesses by making them fire all their illegal workers.
But government figures show that the new effort is tame compared to the early 1990s, when immigration officials fined about 900 companies a year and audited thousands. This year, they fined 237.
Many experts say aggressively cracking down on employers will rid the nation of illegal immigrants. Because the vast majority of them come here to work, America would be a much less appealing destination without job opportunities.
But advocates for stricter enforcement say there is little political appetite to sever the co-dependent relationship between businesses and illegal immigrants.
And aggressive enforcement, agents have learned, can backfire.
In the late 1990s, in response to calls for tougher enforcement, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service -- which later became Immigration and Customs Enforcement -- blanketed Midwestern meat-packing companies with audits that identified thousands of employees suspected of being illegal immigrants.
Frightened workers left in droves, slowing slaughter-line speeds to a crawl and hurting farmers who relied on the meat-packing businesses.
"All hell broke loose," said Mark Reed, a former top INS official who was in charge of the crackdown, dubbed Operation Vanguard. "All of a sudden, these communities that wanted these people out of there realized that they needed them.
They didn't realize that the kids who played on their soccer teams and the people they went to church with were going to go. They didn't realize that they were the center of their economy." Nebraska's governor and members of Congress intervened. Operation Vanguard -- which was scheduled to expand to the rest of the country -- was nipped in the bud.
During the waning years of the Bush administration, immigration agents grabbed headlines by raiding companies and deporting workers. The raids across the country drew controversy, just as Operation Vanguard did a decade earlier.
The Obama administration decided to take a different approach.
In April 2009, ICE issued a memo that downplayed the importance of raids, noting that they did little to prove that employers knowingly hired illegal immigrants.
Instead, it hired scores of auditors and directed them to build cases against businesses. If an audit shows that a business employed illegal immigrants, the owner must fire them to avoid fines of up to $3,200 for each illegal worker -- or prison time.
In 2006, ICE spent just 2 percent of its staff time on worksite enforcement, and not a single company was fined for hiring illegal immigrants. This year, it audited 2,196 businesses and fined 237.
Still, ICE spent only about 5 percent of its staff time on worksite enforcement through April -- less than a fourth of the time it spent on drug smuggling.
Manuel Cunha, president of the Fresno-based Nisei Farmers League, an association of agriculture businesses in the Western U.S., said ICE audited four growers in his association last year, forcing them to fire many of their workers. He described it as a farmer's "worst nightmare." "It was like Satan came to their door and said, 'We're taking your children because you know what? Your children sinned,'" Cunha said. "These farmers knew these workers. They were part of their community. They were part of their families. You yank them out, what does that do to that industry? To those farmers? To those workers?"
Mike Saqui, a Sacramento immigration attorney for businesses, said an audit can be destructive for businesses. One client who was audited in the middle of harvest-time last year had to fire 269 of his 280 field workers.
If ICE wanted to use audits to get agriculture employers' attention, it worked. Cunha said growers worry about audits "every day now." Yet some doubt the administration's audit strategy will succeed.
Reed, the former INS official who now runs an immigration consultant firm in Tucson, Ariz., said ICE should take a more comprehensive strategy and audit all companies in a region in the same industry instead of its current "hodgepodge" approach. Otherwise, he said, businesses will continue to hire illegal immigrants because they believe there's little risk of an audit.
Philip Martin, an immigration and farm labor expert at the University of California, Davis, said another question is whether the administration will follow its strategy consistently.
"So far, it hasn't been sustained long enough for it to have a significant effect," he said. "That's the big question: Is it going to be sustained?" Audits aren't the only thing employers are worried about. Immigration officials are deporting illegal immigrants -- many of them working for farmers or construction companies -- at a record pace. In the 2009-10 fiscal year, they deported 393,000 -- almost twice as many as four years earlier.
Much of the focus has been on deporting illegal immigrants suspected or convicted of crimes. But others often are swept up in such efforts.
That is what happened in Mendota during a February 2007 raid that was criticized by some local officials. Mendota officials said it took residents about a year to recover and the local economy suffered. Former Fresno mayor Alan Autry criticized ICE for being "mind-boggling in its callousness." Erik Bonnar, the deputy field office director who supervises deportations in the San Joaquin Valley, said agents couldn't ignore the fact that some residents were illegal immigrants.
"If our officers determine that they're here illegally, then they'll take them into custody," he said.
More recently, ICE started a program in 2007 called Secure Communities that has attracted growing attention. It uses fingerprints to determine whether jail inmates are illegal immigrants, which often leads to their deportation.
Fresno, Tulare and Merced counties joined the rapidly expanding program this year. Because of jail overcrowding, however, many illegal immigrants arrested for misdemeanor crimes are not booked in jail.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Divorce, Immigration, or Estate Law in RI or MA contact Massachusetts and Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer Rui P. Alves at 401-942-3100 or CONTACT him via email.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Child Returned to Mother as Custodial Parent After Hearing
Child Custody Case Results posted by RI Family Court Attorney Rui P. Alves.
Case Results for RI Child Custody Matter
Father obtained order removing son from mother. Mother was the primary care taker of child. Obtained order returning child to mother prior to court date by demonstrating to the Court that father’s allegations were baseless. Action resolved with mother being the custodial parent of the child.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Divorce, Immigration, or Estate Law in RI or MA contact Massachusetts and Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer Rui P. Alves at 401-942-3100 or CONTACT him via email.
Case Results for RI Child Custody Matter
Father obtained order removing son from mother. Mother was the primary care taker of child. Obtained order returning child to mother prior to court date by demonstrating to the Court that father’s allegations were baseless. Action resolved with mother being the custodial parent of the child.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have questions about this posting or are interested in Divorce, Immigration, or Estate Law in RI or MA contact Massachusetts and Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer Rui P. Alves at 401-942-3100 or CONTACT him via email.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)