“For a long time, men and women have demonstrated their optimism, dreaming of a new Senegal,” so declared Grammy award winning Senegalese singer Youssou N’Dour as he announced his candidacy for president of Senegal on Monday.
Elections are less than two months away.
“They have in various ways called for my candidacy in the February presidential race. I listened. I heard,” N’Dour said in a statement broadcast on Senegals’ TFM a television and radio network he owns. His broadcast networks reguarly lambast the excesses of government.
N’Dour joins 20 other candidates running against incumbent President Abdoulaye Wade who has been in power for more than ten years. Wade, who is 85, set off a storm in the country when he announced plans to run for a third term circumventing the two term limit. Street protests took place in the capital Dakar last year when Wade attempted to have the constitution changed so his son could succeed him instead. He eventually backed off the plan.
N’Dour won a Grammy in 2005 in the World Music category.
For the most part, U.S. immigration laws are complex and confusing. Some are little known or frequently overlooked. Some carry serious consequences that may result in a permanent bar to immigrating to the U.S. One provision that is especially problematic is section 212(a)(6)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). This dictates that any foreign national who falsely claims to be a U.S. citizen for any purpose or benefit under the INA or any federal or state law, including to obtain a job or vote in the U.S., is permanently inadmissible to the U.S. Such a false claim also makes the person removable from the U.S. The law covers all false U.S. citizenship (USC) claims made on or after September 30, 1996, and does not provide any waiver to overcome the bar.
How Does a False Claim to U.S. Citizenship Arise?
Intentional Claims
To obtain benefits under the INA or any federal or state law, foreign nationals might be tempted to claim U.S. citizenship even when they know this is false. Many false USC claims arise when the foreign national completes and signs a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification. All individuals working in the U.S. who were hired after November 6, 1986 must complete the I-9 form, which allows the employer to verify that they are authorized to work in the U.S. The I-9 form includes a section stating as follows –
I attest, under penalty of perjury, that I am (check off one of the following):
A citizen of the United States
A noncitizen national of the United States (see instructions)
A lawful permanent resident (Alien #)
An alien authorized to work (Alien # or Admission #)
Often times, the desire to work overpowers all other considerations and drives foreign nationals who lack employment authorization to falsely assert that they are U.S. citizens. False USC claims often occur when individuals intentionally misrepresent their status in the U.S. on the I-9 and check off the box stating, “A citizen of the United States.” Prior versions of the Form I-9 combined “a citizen or national of the United States” into one attestation box. This allowed some foreign nationals to focus on the ambiguous nature of the box and raise doubts as to whether they falsely claimed to a U.S. citizen, a U.S. national, or something else. When a prior I-9 version is involved, some argue that a false USC claim is not proven unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. The ambiguity no longer exists in the current I-9, which separates U.S. citizen and U.S. national into two different boxes. Further, the foreign national’s presentation of a fake birth certificate or other similar document to show U.S. citizenship is further evidence of a false USC claim.
Unintentional Claims
An unintentional false USC claim arises from inadvertent mistakes, such as when the person reasonably believes he is a U.S. citizen but really is not, or innocently assumes that he qualifies for the benefit when he does not. Unintentionally registering to vote in state and local elections, for example, can occur quite easily. According to the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, also referred to as the Motor Voter Act, when individuals apply for or renew their driver’s licenses at their local Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), states are required to provide them with an opportunity to register to vote.
Only fifteen states, however, call for documentary proof of citizenship at the DMV. Some states do not require any proof of citizenship and many only ask the driver’s license applicant or the DMV clerk to check off a box to designate citizenship status. To add to the confusion, DMV clerks regularly ask driver’s license applicants whether they intend to register to vote. Such a question by a government official may imply to noncitizens that they may vote.
There also situations where individuals, such as adopted children, genuinely believe that they are U.S. citizens, but they later find out that they were mistaken.
What are the Consequences of a False Claim To U.S. Citizenship?
Inability to Adjust to Permanent Resident Status
Foreign nationals who are found to have made false USC claims are ineligible to adjust to permanent resident status. This means they may never immigrate to the U.S. through a family-based or employment-based petition. The severe consequences of violating this law are undeniable. For example, noncitizens who were convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude, such as sexual assault and fraud, are often eligible for waivers of inadmissibility. Strikingly, there are no waivers available to persons who are deemed inadmissible or removable for false USC claims.
Placement In Removal Proceedings
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may – and frequently does – initiate removal proceedings against foreign nationals in the U.S. who violate Section 212(a)(6)(C). The false USC claim issue often arises when the person applies for permanent resident status. In some cases, during the adjustment of status interview, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) may question the applicant about how he was able to work in the U.S. without employment authorization. Some examinations officers will take the extra step of subpoenaing the I-9 records from the applicant’s prior employer or current employer. While some employers might refuse to comply with USCIS’ request, many will simply hand over the I-9 records to USCIS. If the Service finds that the person made a false USC claim, it will issue a Notice to Appear in removal proceedings before the Immigration Court. The person will then need to convince the Immigration Judge that he did not make a false USC claim or defend himself against removal.
What are the Defenses To False Citizenship Claims?
In general, Immigration Courts and government counsels agree that the false USC claim must be intentional. Therefore, one defense is that the person unintentionally claimed to be a U.S. citizen. For example, the citizen/national box on the I-9 might have been mistakenly checked when the applicant presented a permanent resident card (real or fake) to the employer. The foreign national might have reasonably believed that he qualified to register to vote in a state or a local election when he indicated that he was eligible. The law also specifically excuses a foreign national who “reasonably believed” he was a U.S. citizen because his parents either were U.S. citizens or currently are U.S. citizens, and he permanently resided in the U.S. before his 16th birthday. It is rare, however, for all three requirements to be met.
Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court in Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Whiting stated, “The form I-9 itself ‘and any information contained in or appended to [it] … may not be used for purposes other than for enforcement of’ IRCA and other specified provisions of federal law.” This ruling might support a claim that information on a Form I-9 should not be used by the DHS to deny naturalization and adjustment of status applications and place noncitizens in removal proceedings. On that basis, the foreign national could challenge the DHS’ procurement and use of I-9 forms to bring a false USC claim charge.
In addition, false USC claims do not bar foreign nationals from obtaining certain types of relief from removal, such as asylum and/or cancellation of removal. Of course, the foreign national must meet the eligibility requirements to apply for these forms of relief in the first place.
Conclusion
Foreign nationals must refrain from making false USC claims to obtain immigration benefits or other benefits available under federal or state law. False USC claims carry severe, permanent consequences for which there is limited defense or no available relief.
Nothing in this article should be taken as legal advice for an individual case or situation. The information is intended to be general and should not be relied upon for any specific situation. For legal advice, consult an attorney experienced in immigration law.
That black voters will again give President Obama a sky-high percentage of their vote in 2012 was never in doubt. What is in doubt is how many will make up that percentage. It is the number, not percentage of black voters that turn out that will again ease the President’s path back to the White House or, make that path rocky. The 2008 election decisively proved that the presidential re-election bid is a pure numbers game.
If black voters had not turned the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries into a virtual holy crusade for Obama, and if Obama had not, openly in the South Carolina primary and subtly in primaries thereafter, stoked the black vote, he could easily have been just another failed Democratic presidential candidate. Through its voter education, awareness and mobilization campaigns, the NAACP played a huge role in galvanizing and boosting the numbers of black voters, nearly all votes for Obama. It was part race, part pride, and all sense of history in the making, as well as being a part of Obama’s epic win.
The mass rush by blacks to the polls was the single biggest reason that Obama carried the traditional must-win states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, and broke the GOP presidential grip on North Carolina and Virginia. There’s no certainty that will be the case this time around. The GOP dominates the state legislatures in North Carolina, Virginia, Florida and Virginia. Four of these five states have GOP governors, and there’s warfare between the GOP and the Democrats over GOP concocted remapping plans in Florida and Ohio and other states. The plans would virtually insure a spate of redrawn GOP friendly voting districts in the 2012 presidential election. The GOP aim is to gain greater dominance in the House and win majority control in the Senate.
But the biggest prize is the White House, and the more GOP controlled districts in the states that Obama won in 2008, the greater the odds are of rolling those states back into the GOP win column. GOP strategists almost certainly will spend massive sums and mount a relentless, intensive blitz in these states to paint Obama and the Democrats as the cause of the economic woes of the middle-class, with the always subtle undertone of soft pitch racial code language to prick the lingering unease of many conservative white voters toward Obama and the Democrats
This political ploy is even more worrisome. Obama’s centrist appeal to independents played a significant role in getting many of them to punch the Democratic ticket and augment the huge black vote he got in 2008. But a repeat of that in 2012 is questionable. Polls consistently show that a majority of independents are disappointed, dismayed, or hostile to Obama’s handling of the economy, always the Achilles Heel for any incumbent who wants to keep his presidential job.
The good news is that polls are showing the enthusiasm level for Obama is still as high as it was in 2008 among a majority of black voters. Polls also show that blacks are the most optimistic that the country is heading in the right direction. That’s due almost exclusively to their backing of Obama. This is the key factor in getting numbers of voters to show up at the polls on Election Day.
Obama has done two things to keep the enthusiasm level high. In November, he held a black leadership conference and unveiled what is as close yet to a white paper the White House has issued on race. It ticked off a checklist of initiatives from health care, job stimulus and small business aid that have benefited blacks. The position paper was an obvious counter to the shouts from some black activists, and on occasion the Congressional Black Caucus, that he hasn’t said or done enough about the chronic high unemployment, failing public schools, high incarceration rates and worries about home foreclosures, and the poverty crisis facing black communities.
Obama strategists recognize that the novelty of his history-making election has worn off with many blacks. This realization and in some cases, frustration and impatience, set in among many blacks, caused far more second guessing about Obama’s priorities than the White House found comfortable.
The backstabbing, infighting, and clownish antics of the pack of GOP presidential contenders and the constant hectoring of them as weak and ineffectual at this stage of the election game should not be cause for the Democrats to uncork the champagne and declare the 2012 election a cakewalk for Obama.
Despite fielding arguably one of the weakest GOP presidential tickets in recent history, in 2008, the GOP contenders still got the bulk of the white vote. There’s no guarantee that this can’t happen again. The GOP will rally its fractious base when the election chips are down. The black vote is still Obama’s trump card, but only if the numbers are there.
Whether you file as an individual, a corporation, a small business owner, or are self-employed, as the end of the year draws near, you’re probably thinking ahead to tax season and filing your taxes.
Most tax provisions of course, remain the same (IRA contribution limits for example), but a few such as personal exemptions have been adjusted for inflation and others have been extended due to legislation and are set to expire at the end of 2012.
From tax credits, exemptions and deductions for individuals and Section 179 expensing for small businesses, here’s what you need to know about tax changes for 2011. Individuals
From personal deductions to tax credits and educational expenses, many of the tax changes relating to individuals remain in effect through 2012 and are the result of tax provisions that were either modified or extended by the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 that became law on December 17, 2010.
Personal Exemptions
The personal and dependent exemption for tax year 2011 is $3,700, up $50 from 2010.
Standard Deductions
In 2011 the standard deduction for married couples filing a joint return is $11,600, up $200 from 2010 and for singles and married individuals filing separately it’s $5,800, up $100. For heads of household the deduction is $8,500, also up $100 from 2010.
The additional standard deduction for blind people and senior citizens is $1,150 for married individuals, up $50, and $1,450 for singles and heads of household, also up $50.
Income Tax Rates
Due to inflation, tax-bracket thresholds will increase for every filing status. For example, the taxable-income threshold separating the 15-percent bracket from the 25-percent bracket is $69,000 for a married couple filing a joint return, up from $68,000 in 2010.
Estate and Gift Taxes
The recent overhaul of estate and gift taxes means that there is an exemption of $5 million per individual for estate, gift and generation-skipping taxes, with a top rate of 35%. For married couples the exemption is $10 million.
Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
AMT exemption amounts for 2011 are slightly higher than those in 2010 at $48,450 for single and head of household fliers, $74,450 for married people filing jointly and for qualifying widows or widowers, and $37,225 for married people filing separately.
Marriage Penalty Relief
For 2011, the basic standard deduction for a married couple filing jointly is $11,600, up $200 from 2010.
Pease and PEP (Personal Exemption Phaseout)
Pease (limitations on itemized deductions) and PEP (personal exemption phase-out) limitations do not apply for 2011, but these are set to expire at the end of 2012.
Flexible Spending Accounts (FSA)
The Affordable Care Act, enacted in March, established a new uniform standard, effective January 1, 2011, that applies to FSAs and health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs).
Under the new standard, the cost of an over-the-counter medicine or drug cannot be reimbursed from the account unless a prescription is obtained. The change does not affect insulin, even if purchased without a prescription, or other health care expenses such as medical devices, eye glasses, contact lenses, co-pays and deductibles.
The new standard applies only to purchases made on or after Jan. 1, 2011, so claims for medicines or drugs purchased without a prescription in 2010 can still be reimbursed in 2011, if allowed by the employer’s plan.
A similar rule went into effect on Jan. 1, 2011 for Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), and Archer Medical Savings Accounts (Archer MSAs).
Long Term Capital Gains
In 2011, long-term gains for assets held at least one year are taxed at a flat rate of 15% for taxpayers above the 25% tax bracket. For taxpayers in lower tax brackets, the long-term capital gains rate is 0%.
Individuals – Tax Credits
Adoption Credit
A refundable credit of up to $13,360 for 2011 is available for qualified adoption expenses for each eligible child.
Child and Dependent Care Credit
If you pay someone to take care of your dependent (defined as being under the age of 13 at the end of the tax year or incapable of self-care) in order to work or look for work, you may qualify for a credit of up to $1,050 or 35 percent of $3,000 of eligible expenses.
For two or more qualifying dependents, you can claim up to 35 percent of $6,000 (or $2,100) of eligible expenses. For higher income earners the credit percentage is reduced, but not below 20 percent, regardless of the amount of adjusted gross income.
Child Tax Credit
The $1,000 child tax credit has been extended through 2012. A portion of the credit may be refundable, which means that you can claim the amount you are owed, even if you have no tax liability for the year. The credit is phased out for those with higher incomes.
Energy Tax Credits for Homeowners
Energy tax credits for homeowners expire at the end of 2011 and are not as generous as in previous years. In addition, a taxpayer who has claimed an amount of $500 in any previous year is not eligible for this tax credit.
Homeowners can claim an Energy Star window tax credit of up to $200 maximum as well as a water heater tax credit, which includes electric, natural gas, propane, or oil, up to a maximum of $300. The same maximum ($300) applies to air conditioners, but insulation, doors, and roof credits are capped at $500. The furnace tax credit (includes natural gas, propane, oil, or hot water) and is capped at $150 maximum and efficiency must be at 95%.
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)
The maximum EITC for low and moderate income workers and working families is $5,751, up from $5,666 in 2010. The maximum income limit for the EITC has increased to $49,078, up from $48,362 in 2010. The credit varies by family size, filing status and other factors, with the maximum credit going to joint filers with three or more qualifying children.
Individuals – Education Expenses
Coverdell Education Savings Account
For two more years, you can contribute up to $2,000 a year to Coverdell savings accounts. These accounts can be used to offset the cost of elementary and secondary education, as well as post-secondary education.
American Opportunity Tax Credit (Higher Education)
The expansion of the Hope Scholarship Credit by the American Opportunity Tax Credit has been extended through 2012. For 2011, the maximum Hope Scholarship Credit that can be used to offset certain higher education expenses is $2,500, although it is phased out beginning at $160,000 adjusted gross income for joint filers and $80,000 for other filers.
Employer Provided Educational Assistance
Through 2012, you, as an employee, can exclude up to $5,250 of qualifying post-secondary and graduate education expenses that are reimbursed by your employer.
Lifetime Learning Credit
A credit of up to $2,000 is available for an unlimited number of years for certain costs of post-secondary or graduate courses or courses to acquire or improve your job skills. For 2011, the credit is fully phased out at $122,000 adjusted gross income for joint filers and $61,000 for others.
Student Loan Interest
For 2011 and 2012, the $2,500 maximum student loan interest deduction for interest paid on student loans is not limited to interest paid during the first 60 months of repayment. The deduction begins to phase out for higher-income taxpayers.
Tuition and Related Expenses Deduction
For 2010 and 2011, there is an above-the-line deduction of up to $4,000 for qualified tuition expenses. This means that qualified tuition payments can directly reduce the amount of taxable income, and you don’t have to itemize to claim this deduction. However, this option can’t be used with other education tax breaks, such as the American Opportunity Tax Credit, and the amount available is phased out for higher-income taxpayers.
Individuals – Retirement
Roth IRA Conversions
There is no longer an income limit for taxpayers who want to convert regular IRAs into Roth IRAs. The difference is that taxpayers who convert to Roth IRAs in tax year 2011 must pay taxes on the conversion income now instead of deferring it in later years as was the case in 2010.
Businesses
Standard Mileage Rates
The standard mileage rate increases to 51 cents per business mile driven (19 cents per mile driven for medical or moving purposes and 14 cents per mile driven in service of charitable organizations) for the first half of 2011. From July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011 however, the rate increases to 55.5 cents per business mile. This increase is a special adjustment by the IRS and reflects higher gasoline prices.
Health Care Tax Credit for Small Businesses
Small business employers who pay at least half the premiums for single health insurance coverage for their employees may be eligible for the Small Business Health Care Tax Credit as long as they employ fewer than the equivalent of 25 full-time workers and average annual wages do not exceed $50,000. The credit can be claimed in tax years 2010 through 2013 and for any two years after that. The maximum credit that can be claimed is an amount equal to 35% of premiums paid by eligible small businesses.
Section 179 Expensing
In 2011 (as well as 2010), the maximum Section 179 expense deduction for equipment purchases is $500,000 ($535,000 for qualified enterprise zone property) of the first $2 million of certain business property placed in service during the year. The bonus depreciation increases to 100% for qualified property. If the cost of all section 179 property placed in service by the taxpayer during the tax year exceeds $2 million, the $500,000 amount is reduced, but not below zero.
Doing business in Africa and how education and workforce development intersect will be the subject of a high level conference on December 7 at the University of Minnesota’s Carlson Global Institute.
The conference seeks to highlight the importance of doing business in Africa and the connection between economic development, education and the establishment of democracy.
The conference is free and open to the public.
More than a dozen Minnesota companies do business in Africa including Medtronic, Cargill and General Mills.
Organized by Books for Africa and The University’s Carlson Global Institute, the conference will feature Stephen Hayes, the CEO of the influential Washington based Corporate Council on Africa which is co-presenting the discussion.
In 2010, Minnesota exported $184 million worth of merchandise to Africa, led by machinery, agricultural products, and computer and electronic products, according to the Corporate Council on Africa which promotes trade between the U.S. and Africa. South Africa and Egypt were the top two destination countries in Africa. The 2010 number was an increase of $20 million from 2009.
Last year, the total stock of U.S. foreign direct investment in Africa was $53.5 billion. This total was a $10 billion increase (new investment flows) from 2009.
In total, the U.S. exported $28.3 billion worth of merchandise (an increase of $4 billion in merchandise from 2009) and $11.8 billion worth of services to Africa in 2010.
With the increased trade in the continent, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that gross domestic product in the 47 countries of sub-Saharan Africa rose 5 percent last year and forecasts growth of 5.5 percent in 2011.
At next week’s conference, other panelists joining Mr. Hayes will include Trevor Gunn, senior director of international relations at Medtronic; Michelle Grogg, senior director of corporate responsibility at Cargill, and Hussein Samatar, executive director of the African Development Center. The moderator is Srilata (Sri) Zaheer, interim dean and Elmer L. Andersen Chair in Global Corporate Responsibility at the Carlson School.
The conference will be in Room 2-206 at the University of Minnesota’s Carlson Global Institute located at 321 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis.
John Morton, director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), recently announced that his agency deported 400,000 persons this past fiscal year that ended in September. This is the largest number of removals in the agency’s history and the third year in a row that a new record was set. Currently, almost 300,000 individuals are in deportation proceedings.
ICE credits much of its success to a targeted enforcement strategy, which focuses removal efforts on criminal offenders and others who pose a threat to national security. Central to this strategy is a program called Secure Communities, the newest and most controversial immigration enforcement program. The University of California, Berkeley, law school and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York recently published a study of the program’s results. Not surprising to most, the study exposed severe flaws with Secure Communities, such as deportation of individuals with U.S. citizen spouses and children, disproportionate targeting of Latinos, detainment of U.S. citizens, and lack of appropriate checks or opportunities to challenge detention and/or deportation.
The report reveals a program that not only compromises public safety, but violates basic rights granted to both citizens and non-citizens, and completely diminishes the asserted “success” of ICE’s recent deportation numbers.
Background on Secure Communities
Secure Communities was first introduced by the Bush administration in March 2008 and piloted in 14 jurisdictions beginning in October 2008. Under President Obama, the program has expanded dramatically. It is active in 1,595 jurisdictions in 44 states and territories. ICE plans to have the program active in all jurisdictions in the United States by 2013. Secure Communities was designed by DHS and the FBI as a tool to improve public safety by deporting dangerous criminal aliens. The program mobilizes local law enforcement agencies’ resources to enforce federal civil immigration laws, mostly by sharing fingerprint records.
Local law enforcement has shared fingerprint data with the FBI for years. But now, if that data comes from a Secure Communities jurisdiction, the FBI forwards the fingerprints to ICE and ICE checks the fingerprints against their fingerprint system.
When a match is detected, ICE examines its records and if it believes an individual may be deportable, or if it wishes to further investigate an individual’s immigration status, it issues a detainer. A detainer is a request to local police to notify ICE when the individual is going to be released from custody and to hold the individual for up to two days more for transfer to an ICE facility.
Key Findings on Secure Communities
The report compiled by the University of California, Berkeley, law school and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law is based on a random national sample of 375 individuals. The key findings of the report include:
More than one-third (39%) of individuals arrested under Secure Communities report that they have a U.S. citizen spouse or child, meaning that approximately 88,000 families with U.S. citizen members have been affected. This could be an undercount, as immigrants fear disclosing personal information.
Approximately 3,600 U.S. citizens have been arrested and detained by ICE through the Secure Communities program, even though citizens are not subject to removal proceedings.
Latinos comprise 93% of individuals arrested through Secure Communities, though they only comprise 77% of the undocumented population of the U.S.
Only 52% of individuals arrested through Secure Communities are slated to have a hearing before an immigration judge. Of those, only 24% of them had an attorney, compared to 41% of all immigration court respondents who have counsel.
ICE does not appear to be exercising discretion based on its own prioritization system (detaining and deporting dangerous criminal aliens) when deciding whether or not to detain an individual. For example, only 27% of the individuals were charged with removal based on a criminal conviction.
Major Criticisms of Secure Communities
Secure Communities leads to lack of trust between communities and local law enforcement. ICE maintains that Secure Communities is merely a data-sharing program. There is, however, a strong perception in immigrant communities that local police act as ICE agents and that the program encourages racial profiling through the targeting of Latinos (and other immigrant populations) for minor violations or pre-textual arrests. This has eroded the trust between communities and local police, and has led to minimal reporting and cooperation in resolving criminal activity.
Secure Communities has not stayed true to its original stated goal of only removing individuals who pose a threat to public safety. According to ICE’s own figures, well over half of those deported through Secure Communities had either no criminal convictions or had been convicted only of very minor offenses, such as traffic offenses.
Only approximately one quarter (27%) of the individuals in the report’s sample were charged with removal based on a criminal conviction. Nearly half (45%) of the cases analyzed in the report were solely charged with being Present Without admission (PWA) – a charge that does not indicate any criminal history. Only 8% were charged with being removable following an aggravated felony conviction. ICE’s statistics show that about 12% of the individuals removed were merely recent border crossers and 24% were repeat immigration violators or immigration fugitives.
Some jurisdictions are fighting the program. In Santa Cruz County Jail (California), 149 persons had immigration holds placed on them in the past year, but 44% of them had never been convicted of a crime. In response, the County Sheriff’s office has instructed law enforcement to only honor a detention request from ICE if the person has been convicted of a serious or violent felony within the past 10 years, or if the person has even been convicted of a homicide.
There is a lack of due process for individuals identified for removal by Secure Communities. Unlike criminal defendants, immigration detainees are not afforded the basic procedural protections that come with criminal proceedings – they are not provided with attorneys, many are not afforded the right to bond due to harsh mandatory detention laws, and they are routinely transferred thousands of mile away to remote detention facilities in far off jurisdictions.
Conclusion
Secure Communities was created for the purpose of focusing deportation efforts on individuals who pose a genuine danger to communities, but that objective has not been maintained. Those with no criminal history and those with U.S. citizen children or spouses who have only minor traffic violation are still at high risk of being deported. Local enforcement authorities are losing credibility and trust within their communities, leading to reduced reporting of criminal activity (i.e. less secure communities). Though the Secure Communities program may have had a noble purpose, the actual results show a different story and highlight ongoing flaws in the nation’s immigration system.
Nothing in this article should be taken as legal advice for an individual case or situation. The information is intended to be general and should not be relied upon for any specific situation. For legal advice, consult an attorney experienced in immigration law.
New course record for New York marathon as Mutai of Kenya wins big
Geoffrey Mutai of Kenya won the New York marathon on Sunday with a time of 2 hours 5 minutes 6 seconds smashing the old record of 2:07:43, set by Tesfaye Jifar of Ethiopia in 2001. A record 47,438 competitors participated in this year’s marathon according to race officials.
Fellow Kenyan, Emmanuel Mutai, came in second with 2:06:28 while Tsegaye Kebede, 24, of Ethiopia finished third with a time of 2:07:14.
His win comes in the heels of his Boston marathon win course record in a world-best time of 2:03:02 but which ultimately World Federation officials said did not qualify for a world record because of the course elevation in Boston.
He was quoted at the end of the race yesterday saying “I am happy now because even although it was not recognized (Boston record), I’m happy to be at that level,” he said.
Geoffrey Mutai’s margin of victory (1:22.31) was the largest in the marathon’s history since 1992. For his win, he took home a total of US$200,000 which includes a $70,000 bonus for setting a new course record.
The women’s race was won by Firehiwot Dado of Ethiopia with a time of 2:23: 15 taking home a total of US$ 170,000 which included a $40,000 time bonus. Coming in second was fellow Ethiopian Buzunesh Deba at 2:23:19. Kenyan Mary Keitany, who led for most of the race but was overtaken by the two, came in third at 2:23:38.
Dobet Gnahoré's Energy to Saturate Dakota Jazz Club
A full moon will shine down on Minneapolis and rich melodic talents of Dobet Gnahoré will shine on stage at the Dakota Jazz Club & Restaurant on Thursday, November 10th. With more than a dozen years of performance to her credit, Gnahoré returns to the Twin Cities with a new album to promote and new depth in her music to share.
With sounds from her first country, Ivory Coast, creating her foundation, Gnahoré has layered a panoply of African rhythms and genres to her repertoire.The result is truly pan-African. With her French-born husband adding his acumen, the music of Gnahoré blossoms into authentic World Music.
“I’ve always composed my songs myself, in partnership with Colin Laroche de Feline, my husband, who’s also the guitar player of my band,” Gnahoré tells Mshale in an email correspondence.
She explains further how she writes her lyrics in French and then translates them to other African languages. Later, the melody line is added. “I like to proceed this way because for me it’s also a great opportunity to value the beauty and diversity of all those different African languages,” she says. The complexity of the individual languages can be found in their distinct melodies.
With Gnahoré’s latest album, Djekpa la Yo, she tackles a variety of contemporary issues such as the environment and child welfare. “Everyday events that happen around me have also a great influence in the way I compose,” Gnahoré says, “and Nature as well, as illustrated by Kokpa, the song I wrote that deals with the issue of deforestation in the world.”
Gnahoré’s music evokes spontaneous dancing. The musician spent time as a member of the illustrious dance company, Tché Tché, and uses not only her voice and the band’s instruments to convey the music, but her body as well.
With awards from BBC Radio 3 and a Grammy tucked on her shelf at home, Gnahoré has many winning songs to entertain her audience. Thursday night at the Dakota will be saturated in new music as well.An excited Gnahoré tells us,“en fait, j’aime tous les titres de cet album.”If the composer and presenter of the album loves it, surely the audience will, too.
Dobet Gnahoré at the Dakota Jazz Bar & Restaurant, Thursday, November 10, 7:00 p.m., $30 per person.To purchase tickets: go here 1010 Nicollet Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55403
Former Obama Official, Desiree Rogers, keynotes the African Awards
SAINT PAUL, Minn – Over 300 guests attended the third annual African Awards Gala presented by Mshale Newspaper on October 8 in Saint Paul, Minnesota. Seven honorees were honored for their achievements and contributions to the African community. Those attending included the inevitable who’s who in the African immigrant community but also a good cross section of the African community and civic leaders.
City of Saint Paul Council member Patrick Harris, who represented Saint Paul mayor Chris Coleman at the gala, welcomed guests to Saint Paul and commended Mshale for its work in the community.
Former White House Social Secretary and current CEO of Johnson Publishing, Desiree Rogers, was the keynote speaker. She was making her first public appearance in Minnesota since leaving the White House.
The Minnesota African Women’s Association (MAWA), received the Non-Profit organization of the Year Award. BCS African Food Wholesale, based in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota was honored as the African Business of the Year. Peter Kerre of New York received the Spirit of the Moran Award, one of the new categories introduced this year alongside the Non-profit and Artist of the Year awards. This year’s Community Leadership Award went to Ogo Sow of Atlanta while Fatawu Sayibu of Minneapolis became the first recipient of the Artist of the Year award. The Friend of the Community Award went to Catherine Rose, founder of Mindful Generations. James Chepyegon, a student at Southwestern State University in Marshall, Minnesota was this year’s Student of the Year.
As in previous years, winners were selected through a nomination and voting process. Mshale readers submitted nominations at AfricanAwards.org. A panel of judges, chaired by retired Hennepin County Judge, Harry Seymour Crump, went through the nominations and selected the final three for each category and submitted them for a vote by readers. Voting this year was via text messaging which Mshale Founder and Publisher, Tom Gitaa, said saw increased participation in the voting due to the ease with which participants could take part. In a message to gala attendees, he said the success of the text voting via mobile phone “turned out to be a successful initiative which we plan to maintain.”
Speaking to a captive audience, Ms. Rogers shared her own success story in corporate America and her eventual appointment by President Barack Obama as the nation’s first African American White House Social Secretary.”You should not be afraid of people who are smarter than you”, she told attendees. Being in charge of those smarter than her, she said, sharpened and increased her knowledge during her early years in corporate America.
On her exit from the White House following the Salahi gate crashing incident, “I had to take one for the team”, she said with a laugh.
Introducing Ms. Rogers to speak was Dr. Robert J. Jones, Senior Vice President for System Academic Administration at the University of Minnesota. He described the Harvard educated Rogers as “one of America’s most successful businesswomen”.
It was a special evening, especially for the honorees. Thanking Mshale and its readers for the honor, some got emotional during their acceptance speeches with Catherine Rose stating how special it was to receive the award “especially coming from you”. She has done work with communities in Africa and the Caribbean.
The 2011 gala not only featured expanded award categories, the entertainment was superb. Runway Africa, which debuted in Minneapolis in 2010, made their only 2011 appearance in the state at the African Awards gala. Featuring two acts and two African designers, models strutted the stage as guests munched on their tilapia and rice. The two designers, Hilda Mauya and Satu, showcased their 2011 fall lineup.
Sandwiched in between the break from the fashion show was a Cirque de Soleil inspired circus act by Circus Juventas, the only Youth circus school in state. The school’s presentation drew gasps from audience, some of whom had never seen a circus presentation in person.
Speaking on behalf of all the sponsors, Tashitaa Tufaa, CEO of Metropolitan Transportation and last year’s recipient of the African Business of the Year award, expressed his company’s pleasure in partnering with Mshale as the year’s title sponsor. The evening’s emcee, Dr. Edwin Bogonko, thanked all sponsors on behalf of Mshale.
Closing out the evening was Mshale founder, Tom Gitaa, who thanked guests and volunteers for another successful presentation of the African Awards Gala.
Becoming a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) of the United States is often a long and difficult process for foreign nationals. Obtaining LPR status leads to a multitude of benefits, including the freedom to live and work anywhere in the U.S., as well as qualify for social welfare programs and government financial aid for higher education. It is also one step closer to becoming eligible for U.S. citizenship. Permanent residence may be obtained through a U.S. citizen or LPR family member, employment, investment, asylum or refugee status, and the diversity lottery. Regardless of how the person became an LPR, he must have the intent to reside permanently in the United States and take precautionary steps to prevent the unintentional abandonment of his LPR status.
The question of abandonment depends on the person’s intent rather than the length of time he spent abroad. Nonetheless, the longer one spends outside the U.S., the harder it becomes to show that he intended to return to the U.S. and live here permanently.
Absences of More Than Six Months
Most permanent residents are aware that they could lose their status and be ordered removed from the United States if they commit certain crimes. But many are unaware that they could lose their status by simply being absent from the United States for an extended period, particularly for more than six months or 180 days. They often learn about the abandonment issue only when it is too late to take preventive steps. For example, they might depart for their home country to care for an ill, elderly relative and not think twice about maintaining their residence. Upon their return to the U.S., following a long absence overseas, the U.S. customs officer may refuse to admit them as an LPR because they have being gone for so long and cannot show strong ties to the U.S.
Even though they have never committed a crime and were never placed in removal proceedings, permanent residents have to “apply for admission” at the U.S. port of entry upon their return from overseas. An absence of more than six months raises a presumption that the person abandoned his LPR status. The U.S. customs officer may require the person to prove he has not abandoned his LPR status by showing fixed ties to this country (for example, filing of income tax returns, family members in the U.S., property ownership, bank accounts, and business affiliations.)
Absences of One Year or More
Permanent residents who are absent from the United States for one year or more often find it the hardest to being re-admitted. Besides the issue of abandonment, the green card is not enough to gain re-entry to the U.S because it becomes technically invalid following an absence of one year or more. The returning resident must have a re-entry permit and apply for the permit before he leaves the United States. Otherwise, he may be considered to have abandoned his LPR status when he seeks admission. A re-entry permit helps to show that he did not intend to abandon LPR status, and allows him to apply for admission to the U.S. after traveling abroad for up to two years without having to obtain a returning resident visa.
Consequences of Unintentional Abandonment
If the person does not convince the customs officer that he maintained his status, he may be detained in the custody of U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) or released conditionally, placed in removal proceedings, and referred to the Immigration Court to decide whether he is admissible to the United States and whether he abandoned his status. If the Immigration Court finds that he abandoned his status, and he wants to stay in the U.S., he will need to file an application for defense against removal or re-file an application for permanent residence, assuming he is eligible.
In other cases, the customs officer may simply confiscate the LPR’s green card at the port of entry, deny him entry, and force him to return to his home country or last country of departure. The customs officer may also give the person a Form I-407, Abandonment of Permanent Residence Status, to sign (sometimes in exchange for being admitted to the United States as a temporary visitor).
Steps To Preventing Unintentional Abandonment of LPR Status
Proving that the LPR maintained his status after he lived outside the United States for most of the year is a very challenging task. The person not only runs the risk of losing his LPR status but also of being forced to depart the United States. Abandonment of LPR status will also affect immigrant petitions for beneficiaries that the LPR might have pending before USCIS. For example, if it is decided that an LPR abandoned his status while his immigrant relative petition for a son or daughter is still pending with USCIS, that petition becomes invalid and the son or daughter will not be granted permanent residence.
There are steps that permanent residents should take to maintain their status instead of being deemed to abandon their status. They include the following:
1. Avoid Prolonged Absences from the United States and Taking Residence in Another Country.
LPR status is granted to foreign nationals who intend to make the U.S. their permanent home. Prolonged absences from the U.S. for any reason other than a temporary purpose could result in the loss of this status. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has set legal precedents regarding the abandonment of LPR status. The BIA defined “permanent” to mean “a relationship of continuing or lasting nature, as distinguished from temporary.” The BIA defined “residence” to mean “the place of general abode, the place of general abode of a person means his principle, actual dwelling place in fact, without regard to intent.” Finally, the BIA stated that a person returning to the U.S. as an LPR must be returning “to an unrelinquished lawful permanent residence in the United States after a temporary absence abroad.”
In one BIA case, Matter of Kane, a citizen of Jamaica lived in her native country for 11 months and came back to the U.S. for one month each year in an effort to maintain her LPR status. The BIA found that her actual place of residence was Jamaica, and she was no longer entitled to LPR status in the U.S. As this case illustrates, many LPRs mistakenly believe that they only need to return to the U.S. at least once per year in order to maintain their LPR status.
2. Continue to Maintain Ties to The U.S.
Family connections, business ties, membership in organizations, ownership of property, employment and tax filings in the U.S. help to show that the person intends to live permanently in the U.S. and did not abandon his LPR status despite a prolonged absence. The person must also show that the purpose of the trip abroad was temporary and fixed and that he intended to the return to the U.S. as an actual home or place of employment. Family ties, property ownership and business affiliations in the foreign country, on the other hand, raise red flags. Failing to file tax returns or filing as a nonresident in the U.S. are also negative factors.
3. Refrain from Signing a Form I-407
A signed Form I-407 serves as evidence that the person affirmatively abandoned his residence. A person who no longer wishes to keep his LPR status can always sign a Form I-407 and submit it with his green card to the appropriate U.S. Embassy or U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS). But when the person does not wish to abandon his status, he should refrain from submitting a signed I-407, even if he is pressured to do so at the U.S. port of entry. This would make it much harder to prove that he maintained or intended to maintain his status. When the person can be the beneficiary of an immediate relative petition, however, he may choose to sign the I-407 and be waived in as a visitor rather than a returning resident. Then, when he is more able to reside in the United States, a new immigrant petition can be filed for him.
4. Apply for a Re-Entry Permit
A re-entry permit does not automatically preserve LPR status or guarantee re-entry into the U.S. following a prolonged absence. Nonetheless, a re-entry permit helps to show that the LPR intended to return to the U.S. The re-entry permit also serves as a valid entry document after absences of more than one year.
Conclusion
When the person presents a colorable claim to returning resident status, the U.S. government has the burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that he abandoned his LPR status and is thus removable from the U.S. If the government meets this burden, the person then has to prove otherwise.
While it is important to know the benefits of LPR status, it is more critical to understand how to maintain it. Because each case is unique, all permanent residents should consult with an experienced immigration attorney before leaving the U.S. for an extended period, regardless of the purpose of the trip. Getting sound legal advice and taking precautionary steps could mean the difference between preserving LPR status and losing this coveted status, which many struggle to obtain.
Nothing in this article should be taken as legal advice for an individual case or situation. The information is intended to be general and should not be relied upon for any specific situation. For legal advice, consult an attorney experienced in immigration law.
