Silicon Valley Immigration Lawyer Blog

Today the San Francisco Board of Supervisors pushed for a boycott of Arizona and its businesses based there, to protest the new immigration law signed last Friday. The new immigration law requires state and local law enforcement to question individuals about their immigration status if the officer has a "reasonable suspicion" that they are undocumented. An individual who cannot provide proof of legal status would be subject to arrest. The new law essentially compels law enforcement to conduct racial profiling of all people in the state, and will lead to people being questioned and detained for looking foreign.

In opposition to the new law, the San Francisco Board of supervisors is calling for San Francisco to end any and all contracts with Arizona-based companies and to stop, doing business with the state. Supervisor David Campos told a City Hall rally, "We want to send a message. . . . There are consequences when you target a whole people." City Attorney Dennis Herrera also called for a wide-ranging boycott of Arizona, and pledged to have attorneys in his office work with the city to identify contracts with Arizona companies and help break those contracts where possible.

San Francisco is not the one calling for a boycott. Within hours of the new law being signed, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) Board of Governors voted to move the Association's Fall 2010 conference, which was to be held in Arizona. AILA's Board President explained that AILA could not spend its funds in a state that dehumanizes the very people that many AILA members represent.

Arizona is already under fire for signing into law a new immigration law that President Obama characterized as "misguided" and that would "undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans." Obama said he instructed the Justice Department to "examine the civil rights and other implications" of the new law.

The new immigration law requires state and local law enforcement to question individuals about their immigration status if the officer has a "reasonable suspicion" that they are undocumented. An individual who cannot provide proof of legal status would be subject to arrest. The new law essentially compels law enforcement to conduct racial profiling of all people in the state, and will lead to people being questioned and detained for looking foreign.

What would cause an officer to have reasonable suspicion that a person is "undocumented"? The color of their skin? Their accent? They way they are dressed? The work that they are doing? The kind of car they drive?

When I first heard about this new law, I was reminded of a public service announcement that ran soon after the September 11 attacks, called "I am an American". Created by the Ad Council, it features Americans of different races, accents, ages, and dress stating "I am an American." It's a reminder that we really cannot determine who is American and who is undocumented, simply from appearances.

As an immigration lawyer, I've met U.S. citizens of all different ethnicities, occupations, and varying levels of English proficiency. I've also met undocumented immigrants with white collar jobs, who look and talk like they could be from the Midwest (where I am from.) When I meet a potential new client, I cannot tell whether they are a U.S. citizen, a U.S. permanent resident, a legal nonimmigrant, or an undocumented immigrant, until I hear their story. I wonder how the Arizona police will decide who creates a 'reasonable suspicion" of being undocumented?

Yesterday I had the benefit of joining a group of local San Francisco and Silicon Valley immigration lawyers and government staffers to meet with the USCIS Director, Alejandro Mayorkas. He held a town-hall style meeting at the San Francisco USCIS office, to provide an overview of his goals for the USCIS and to hear our concerns of working with the USCIS. Overall, as an immigration lawyer, I came away truly enthusiastic about the direction I hope we will see the USCIS headed. If the Director can put his goals into action, then applicants and lawyers should see a more positive interaction with the USCIS, and we should see the USCIS heading away from the "culture of no" that has pervaded the USCIS over the past several years.

The Director had no prepared remarks, and began by stating that he hoped everyone would feel comfortable being outspoken. As a Cuban immigrant himself, he explained that he wants the U.S. immigration system to be "welcoming". He wants adjudicators to understand that each case is about someone's life and the lives of their family, and each case needs to be treated as such. The Director rhetorically asked how the USCIS can be welcoming while also being vigilant against fraud. His answer was that a vigilant approach permits the USCIS to be welcoming and embracing.

The Director acknowledged that a government agency that is essentially a public service agency cannot serve without reaching out to the community. He highlighted the USCIS' Office of Public Engagement, as one avenue to bridge the divide between the USCIS and the community. He also acknowledged that the USCIS cannot govern by edict, as they effectively do when they publish new memos interpreting critical statutes and regulations without consulting those most affected. He specifically acknowledged the troublesome Neufeld Memo of January 2010 and discussed in an earlier post.

Continue reading "USCIS Director Meets With Silicon Valley Lawyers" »