WOAA discusses Immigration Reform
Tackling the Great Divide
Tackling the Great Divide
| In an effort to understand the various questions surrounding the current immigration reform debate, and hopefully create a united stand on the issue, members of the Wisconsin Organization for Asian Americans-Madison (WOAA) and guests from other community organizations, including the Latino community, gathered at Yahara Place on June 28 to discuss this important issue, which is up for another round of action by the U.S. Congress. The discussion moderator was Ashok Bhargava (former UW-Whitewater economics professor and legislative consultant to State Senator Russ Feingold), and the panelists were: Saejung Lee (immigration & employment attorney); Ramona Natera (immigration attorney); Shiva Bidar-Sielaff (UW-Hospital Community Partnerships and Latino Support Network, City of Madison Alder); and Carmel Capati (immigration, employment, and labor attorney). Attendees asked questions after each panelist’s presentation. Saejung Lee (Immigration Attorney) In her presentation, Saejung Lee talked briefly about herself as a Korean- born who grew up in Bangladesh and immigrated to the United States with an F visa (student visa). She studied in a boarding school in North Carolina, she said, but it was her college years in Chicago which really exposed her to real life in America. She graduated with a degree in anthropology from the University of Chicago (with honors) and later completed her law degree. In order to stay in the United States and get a green card, she said, she had to get married. She is now a lawyer whose specialization is immigration and employment laws. Using herself as an example, Lee said that after college, she didn’t think about her immigration status at first. “Oh, I have to get a job, then I realized that it’ s really hard to find a job without a green card,” Lee recalled. She was hired by a multimedia journalism company that told her, ‘OK, we’ll provide you an employment visa if you work for a couple of years.’ But Lee was not happy with her job. “I knew in my heart I didn’t want to work there. I hated the job and I couldn’t imagine being kind of an indentured servant for that environment.” Her final alternative was to get married, a statement that drew mixed reaction from her audience. “That is the reality that we don’t talk about,” Lee stressed. “The message that we’re giving is that these highly trained, highly skilled people who come to the United States at great expense get educated to better |
The U.S.A.: Land of immigrants, land of hope?
Part 1 of 2
By Heidi M. Pascual
One of the most talked about political issues of the day, which divides Americans in a very passionate
way, is immigration reform. The divisions are very clear: anti-immigration, anti-illegal immigration,
immigration reduction, and open immigration. There are several questions that come to mind when the issue
is brought up, since ‘reform’ means an improvement to correct ‘faults or abuses’ in our current immigration
policy. Some of them are: What ‘reform’ should our legislators consider that reflects the majority of
Americans’ will? What ‘reform’ is ‘just’ for people whose lives would be most affected by it? Who will
benefit and who will be hurt with a new Immigration Reform Act? How will it affect the politicians who
would vote for or against it?
Background: The history of laws on immigration and naturalization in the United States started in the 18th
century with the Naturalization Act of 1790, which restricted naturalization to white persons of good moral
character. Subsequent laws up to mid-20th century discriminated against people based on race/color,
national origin, health (including mental) condition, lack of education, and ‘subversive’ background. It was
only in 1870 when African Americans were allowed to become naturalized citizens. The Chinese Exclusion
Act of 1882 was a blatant and open show of racism against the Chinese. Several laws discriminated against
Asians and immigrants of color by prohibiting them from owning land or marrying Whites. The national-origin
quota system also limited immigration from specific countries. It was only during the second half of the last
century, especially at the height of the civil rights movement and thereafter, when significant immigration
amendments corrected many legalized discriminatory distinctions that existed in past laws.
Fast forward to the Obama administration — On June 25th, President Obama met with members of Congress
and expressed his desire to get the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill enacted as soon as possible. U.
S. Sen. Charles Schumer (chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration), in his speech before a
conference organized by the Migration Policy Institute on June 24, stressed that there are seven key
principles that the American people overwhelmingly support: curtail future illegal immigration; gain
operational control of our borders; adopt a biometric-based employer verification system; require
undocumented immigrants to register and submit to a process of converting to legal status; create more
room for family-based and employment-based immigration by reducing illegal immigration; encourage the
best and the brightest to come here, while discouraging businesses from hiring foreigners to replace
capable American workers; and create a manageable, controlled legal flow of unskilled immigrants who can
be absorbed by our economy.
Part 1 of 2
By Heidi M. Pascual
One of the most talked about political issues of the day, which divides Americans in a very passionate
way, is immigration reform. The divisions are very clear: anti-immigration, anti-illegal immigration,
immigration reduction, and open immigration. There are several questions that come to mind when the issue
is brought up, since ‘reform’ means an improvement to correct ‘faults or abuses’ in our current immigration
policy. Some of them are: What ‘reform’ should our legislators consider that reflects the majority of
Americans’ will? What ‘reform’ is ‘just’ for people whose lives would be most affected by it? Who will
benefit and who will be hurt with a new Immigration Reform Act? How will it affect the politicians who
would vote for or against it?
Background: The history of laws on immigration and naturalization in the United States started in the 18th
century with the Naturalization Act of 1790, which restricted naturalization to white persons of good moral
character. Subsequent laws up to mid-20th century discriminated against people based on race/color,
national origin, health (including mental) condition, lack of education, and ‘subversive’ background. It was
only in 1870 when African Americans were allowed to become naturalized citizens. The Chinese Exclusion
Act of 1882 was a blatant and open show of racism against the Chinese. Several laws discriminated against
Asians and immigrants of color by prohibiting them from owning land or marrying Whites. The national-origin
quota system also limited immigration from specific countries. It was only during the second half of the last
century, especially at the height of the civil rights movement and thereafter, when significant immigration
amendments corrected many legalized discriminatory distinctions that existed in past laws.
Fast forward to the Obama administration — On June 25th, President Obama met with members of Congress
and expressed his desire to get the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill enacted as soon as possible. U.
S. Sen. Charles Schumer (chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration), in his speech before a
conference organized by the Migration Policy Institute on June 24, stressed that there are seven key
principles that the American people overwhelmingly support: curtail future illegal immigration; gain
operational control of our borders; adopt a biometric-based employer verification system; require
undocumented immigrants to register and submit to a process of converting to legal status; create more
room for family-based and employment-based immigration by reducing illegal immigration; encourage the
best and the brightest to come here, while discouraging businesses from hiring foreigners to replace
capable American workers; and create a manageable, controlled legal flow of unskilled immigrants who can
be absorbed by our economy.
(Above) Atty Saejung Lee and
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff (below) were
among the panelists at WOAA's
immigration reform discussion
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff (below) were
among the panelists at WOAA's
immigration reform discussion
Ashok Bhargava
moderates the
discussion
moderates the
discussion
(L-R) Ashok Bhargava, Carmel Capati, Shiva Bidar-Sielaff,
Ramona Natera, and Saejung Lee
Ramona Natera, and Saejung Lee
themselves, … meet a guy and get married. And that is something that we are ashamed to talk about. But we really need to bring awareness
that this is happening.”
Lee works with highly educated professionals — many of whom have their master’s or Ph.D.s — who carry an H-1B visa — a temporary or
non-immigrant visa. “For the past 20 years, the Senate has not increased the quota for the non-immigrant work visa,” she explained. “So, it’s
a rude awakening for people who come from all over the world, especially East Asia, China and India, to study in top universities in the United
States and of course … have their parents foot the bills. Those people, who are most focused on studies, may not be as practical and may not
be as savvy to think about what’s going to be their immigration status after their student visa runs out. And many people don’t think about it
until they’re forced to. Most of the time, it could be a bit too late. It’s a heart-wrenching experience because we have very smart Ph.D.s who
are in a very difficult situation.”
Lee said there is another alternative for these highly educated people that would enable them to stay in the United States legally — a
“National Interest Waiver” petition.” She cited a case she is working on about a top MIT graduate with a family and two children born here in
the U.S. “This visa, called ‘National Interest Waiver,’ is almost impossible to get,” she admitted. “Fortunately, he’s one of the leaders in the
field, so there’s a good chance, but we won’t know for another year. So it is a very frustrating process, and I think this is not the message that
the United States wants to give to highly trained individuals who really want to contribute to, not only to this society but to the world. She
added that Canada is capitalizing on this issue, by attracting these highly qualified, highly educated individuals. “Right now, there’s a fast-
track to residency and citizenship in Canada for anybody with H-1B non-immigrant visa in the United States. They don’t require all these
hurdles. So many people are seeking countries like Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and other countries, and EU is really changing their
immigration laws (as well).”
Responding to some questions, Lee said that H-1B (which lasts for six years) is an employment visa based on country of origin. Those
carrying this visa from Mainland China and India who applied for a green card in 2000 (priority date) are now up for consideration by the U.S.
Citizenship and Naturalization Service (USCIS). She also explained that because of the economy, USCIS hasn’t even filled the quota. The F
visa (student visa), on the other hand, requires non-immigrant intent, so the U.S. government can kick out of the country these international
students if they overstayed.
“And if you’re Asian, getting an F visa is very hard if you’re single,” Lee added. “You have to have enormous family wealth; you have to
show some sort of intent that you’re going to come back (to your country), because they assume Asian women who come into the United
States to study will marry a U.S. citizen … which is true for me.”
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff (Director of Community Partnerships, UW Health -academic health center, City of Madison alder)
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff’s professional work involves connecting and providing support to nonprofits that serve UW-Health’s patients, their
families, and the community. She also makes sure that her organization stays connected to communities of color because “that’s the group
that traditionally has not had many advocates within the health care system. Bidar-Sielaff does a lot of advocacy for immigrant patient
populations. She is also a highly respected leader in the Latino community and an elected City of Madison alder.
Bidar-Sielaff also came to the U.S. with an F visa to attend graduate school and afterward married a U.S. citizen. She was born in Iran, grew
up in Spain, and immigrated to the U.S. as a student. “I’ve been in Madison for 12 years, and in the U.S. for 16 years,” she said, and she
became a U.S. citizen in 1998.
On the issue at hand, Bidar-Sielaff was straightforward, emphasizing her candid observation of the divisions occurring within the
immigrant communities. “… All of us immigrants and those who care about the immigrant communities do not speak with a common voice on
a policy level,” she said, pointing out the misconceptions and misunderstanding that actually get reenacted in these different communities.
“And so, there’s a very effective way of pitting communities against communities when we talk about immigration and immigration policy.
One of the things that very often happens is, people would say, ‘Well, I came here legally!’ I can say that, too. I came here legally, right? I
came here with an F visa. The other people didn’t, so they should stay in the line and come. If I apply right now for my father to be able to get a
family-based visa, I could do that because I am a citizen, (although) it would take six or seven years to get his turn, at the very least. So I
could say, I’m frustrated, because it would take my dad seven years, but this other person just crossed the border and showed up here. And
so, I think there’s been a very effective way to make sure that immigrant communities are very divided about the way they feel about
immigration. And they’re divided based on lines of legal immigrants and undocumented immigrants; and among the legal immigrants, divided
among those who have high levels of education who came here because they’re part of the academe or have knowledge critical to this
country, or those who are maybe cab drivers.”
Bidar-Sielaff explained that her social outlook on the issue is that there is a need for all U.S. immigrants to be here, regardless of status,
and that all are contributing members of this society. She also stressed that whatever the differences in viewpoints, everybody could agree
on one thing: that there is a need for immigration reform.
“I think we can all agree … that the whole system is broken,” she said. “It is so complex and so convoluted that there is no way that
people can really figure it out. “ She cited the “imaginary line” or the waiting time for visa applicants and how it affects, say married couples.
“Well, a line of seven years for your fiancé to come from your country is not a line,” Bidar-Sielaff averred. “That’s an imaginary line, because
nobody in their right mind would say that it’s OK to get married at age 27 and then wait until you’re 35 for your fiancé to come to this country.”
Unfortunately for undocumented immigrants, there is absolutely no line, she lamented. “Hopefully, what immigration reform can create is at
least some process – now, we can all disagree or agree about how extensive or not extensive that process would need to be – but at least
we can agree that there has to be some process, because those people who are undocumented have children born here, many of them are in
what we call ‘mixed families,’ which means one of them is undocumented, the spouse is U.S citizen or a green card holder.”
She explained it would be impractical for these families to just pack up and “go back to where they came from,” and that they would just
stay undocumented. “If we tell them to apply a policy that is not going to be feasible in their life circumstances, change is not going to
happen,” Bidar-Sielaff said with certainty. “So I think this is really going to be a critical piece of the immigration reform, because I can
guarantee you that the attempt is going to be to divide immigrant communities across the lines that I just mentioned – educated vs.
uneducated, undocumented vs. documented, whatever it is. And our strength is in our numbers, and our strength is saying that whatever we
are, we are part of the fabric of this nation and that we are contributing members of the communities that we are part of.”
Next issue will continue the panel discussion by Shiva Bidar-Sielaff, Ramona Natera, and Carmel Capati.
that this is happening.”
Lee works with highly educated professionals — many of whom have their master’s or Ph.D.s — who carry an H-1B visa — a temporary or
non-immigrant visa. “For the past 20 years, the Senate has not increased the quota for the non-immigrant work visa,” she explained. “So, it’s
a rude awakening for people who come from all over the world, especially East Asia, China and India, to study in top universities in the United
States and of course … have their parents foot the bills. Those people, who are most focused on studies, may not be as practical and may not
be as savvy to think about what’s going to be their immigration status after their student visa runs out. And many people don’t think about it
until they’re forced to. Most of the time, it could be a bit too late. It’s a heart-wrenching experience because we have very smart Ph.D.s who
are in a very difficult situation.”
Lee said there is another alternative for these highly educated people that would enable them to stay in the United States legally — a
“National Interest Waiver” petition.” She cited a case she is working on about a top MIT graduate with a family and two children born here in
the U.S. “This visa, called ‘National Interest Waiver,’ is almost impossible to get,” she admitted. “Fortunately, he’s one of the leaders in the
field, so there’s a good chance, but we won’t know for another year. So it is a very frustrating process, and I think this is not the message that
the United States wants to give to highly trained individuals who really want to contribute to, not only to this society but to the world. She
added that Canada is capitalizing on this issue, by attracting these highly qualified, highly educated individuals. “Right now, there’s a fast-
track to residency and citizenship in Canada for anybody with H-1B non-immigrant visa in the United States. They don’t require all these
hurdles. So many people are seeking countries like Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and other countries, and EU is really changing their
immigration laws (as well).”
Responding to some questions, Lee said that H-1B (which lasts for six years) is an employment visa based on country of origin. Those
carrying this visa from Mainland China and India who applied for a green card in 2000 (priority date) are now up for consideration by the U.S.
Citizenship and Naturalization Service (USCIS). She also explained that because of the economy, USCIS hasn’t even filled the quota. The F
visa (student visa), on the other hand, requires non-immigrant intent, so the U.S. government can kick out of the country these international
students if they overstayed.
“And if you’re Asian, getting an F visa is very hard if you’re single,” Lee added. “You have to have enormous family wealth; you have to
show some sort of intent that you’re going to come back (to your country), because they assume Asian women who come into the United
States to study will marry a U.S. citizen … which is true for me.”
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff (Director of Community Partnerships, UW Health -academic health center, City of Madison alder)
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff’s professional work involves connecting and providing support to nonprofits that serve UW-Health’s patients, their
families, and the community. She also makes sure that her organization stays connected to communities of color because “that’s the group
that traditionally has not had many advocates within the health care system. Bidar-Sielaff does a lot of advocacy for immigrant patient
populations. She is also a highly respected leader in the Latino community and an elected City of Madison alder.
Bidar-Sielaff also came to the U.S. with an F visa to attend graduate school and afterward married a U.S. citizen. She was born in Iran, grew
up in Spain, and immigrated to the U.S. as a student. “I’ve been in Madison for 12 years, and in the U.S. for 16 years,” she said, and she
became a U.S. citizen in 1998.
On the issue at hand, Bidar-Sielaff was straightforward, emphasizing her candid observation of the divisions occurring within the
immigrant communities. “… All of us immigrants and those who care about the immigrant communities do not speak with a common voice on
a policy level,” she said, pointing out the misconceptions and misunderstanding that actually get reenacted in these different communities.
“And so, there’s a very effective way of pitting communities against communities when we talk about immigration and immigration policy.
One of the things that very often happens is, people would say, ‘Well, I came here legally!’ I can say that, too. I came here legally, right? I
came here with an F visa. The other people didn’t, so they should stay in the line and come. If I apply right now for my father to be able to get a
family-based visa, I could do that because I am a citizen, (although) it would take six or seven years to get his turn, at the very least. So I
could say, I’m frustrated, because it would take my dad seven years, but this other person just crossed the border and showed up here. And
so, I think there’s been a very effective way to make sure that immigrant communities are very divided about the way they feel about
immigration. And they’re divided based on lines of legal immigrants and undocumented immigrants; and among the legal immigrants, divided
among those who have high levels of education who came here because they’re part of the academe or have knowledge critical to this
country, or those who are maybe cab drivers.”
Bidar-Sielaff explained that her social outlook on the issue is that there is a need for all U.S. immigrants to be here, regardless of status,
and that all are contributing members of this society. She also stressed that whatever the differences in viewpoints, everybody could agree
on one thing: that there is a need for immigration reform.
“I think we can all agree … that the whole system is broken,” she said. “It is so complex and so convoluted that there is no way that
people can really figure it out. “ She cited the “imaginary line” or the waiting time for visa applicants and how it affects, say married couples.
“Well, a line of seven years for your fiancé to come from your country is not a line,” Bidar-Sielaff averred. “That’s an imaginary line, because
nobody in their right mind would say that it’s OK to get married at age 27 and then wait until you’re 35 for your fiancé to come to this country.”
Unfortunately for undocumented immigrants, there is absolutely no line, she lamented. “Hopefully, what immigration reform can create is at
least some process – now, we can all disagree or agree about how extensive or not extensive that process would need to be – but at least
we can agree that there has to be some process, because those people who are undocumented have children born here, many of them are in
what we call ‘mixed families,’ which means one of them is undocumented, the spouse is U.S citizen or a green card holder.”
She explained it would be impractical for these families to just pack up and “go back to where they came from,” and that they would just
stay undocumented. “If we tell them to apply a policy that is not going to be feasible in their life circumstances, change is not going to
happen,” Bidar-Sielaff said with certainty. “So I think this is really going to be a critical piece of the immigration reform, because I can
guarantee you that the attempt is going to be to divide immigrant communities across the lines that I just mentioned – educated vs.
uneducated, undocumented vs. documented, whatever it is. And our strength is in our numbers, and our strength is saying that whatever we
are, we are part of the fabric of this nation and that we are contributing members of the communities that we are part of.”
Next issue will continue the panel discussion by Shiva Bidar-Sielaff, Ramona Natera, and Carmel Capati.