WOAA discusses Immigration Reform
Tackling the Great Divide
Tackling the Great Divide
| employment, & labor attorney). Attendees asked questions after each panelist’s presentation. Last month’s issue featured the presentations of Saejung Lee and Shiva Bidar Sielaff. This last installment focuses on the continuation of Bidar Sielaff’s talk and the presentations of Ramona Natera and Carmel Capati. Shiva Bidar-Sielaff Bidar-Sielaff emphasized that on the local level, the present immigration system has affected the lives of people interms of health care accessibility and dealings with law enforcement, for instance. “What if you [are undergoing] that immigration process and you become sick?” she asked. She said people need to wait five years before they can apply for medical assistance or Medicare, so that those diagnosed with breast cancer three years within marrying a U.S. citizen who are within the process do not qualify for some of the government programs. She encouraged her audience to pay attention to how immigration reform intersects with health care reform. If one gets stopped in Dane County for any reason and taken to the Dane County jail, citizenship or immigration status is asked, Bidar-Sielaff said and the Sheriff Department runs the name of that person in the USCIS database. “If that person is out of |
The U.S.A.: Land of immigrants, land of hope?
Part 2 of 2
By Heidi M. Pascual
Note: 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.
In an effort to understand the various questions surrounding the current immigration reform debate, and
hopefully create a united stand on the issue, the Wisconsin Organization for Asian Americans-Madison
(WOAA) members and guests from other community organizations, including the Latino community, gathered
at Yahara Place on June 28 to discuss this important issue, which today is up for another round of action by
the U.S. Congress. The discussion moderator was Ashok Bhargava (former UW-Whitewater economics
professor and ‘unofficial’ legislative consultant to U.S. Senator Russ Feingold) while the panelists were:
Saejung Lee (immigration & employment attorney); Ramona Natera (immigration attorney); Shiva Bidar-Sielaff
(UW-Hospital Community Partnerships and Latino Support Network); and Carmel Capati (immigration,
Part 2 of 2
By Heidi M. Pascual
Note: 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.
In an effort to understand the various questions surrounding the current immigration reform debate, and
hopefully create a united stand on the issue, the Wisconsin Organization for Asian Americans-Madison
(WOAA) members and guests from other community organizations, including the Latino community, gathered
at Yahara Place on June 28 to discuss this important issue, which today is up for another round of action by
the U.S. Congress. The discussion moderator was Ashok Bhargava (former UW-Whitewater economics
professor and ‘unofficial’ legislative consultant to U.S. Senator Russ Feingold) while the panelists were:
Saejung Lee (immigration & employment attorney); Ramona Natera (immigration attorney); Shiva Bidar-Sielaff
(UW-Hospital Community Partnerships and Latino Support Network); and Carmel Capati (immigration,
(Above) Atty. Carmel Capati and
Atty. Ramona Natera (below)
were among the panelists at
WOAA's immigration reform
discussion
Atty. Ramona Natera (below)
were among the panelists at
WOAA's immigration reform
discussion
(L-R) Ashok Bhargava, Carmel Capati, Shiva
Bidar-Sielaff, Ramona Natera, and Saejung Lee
Bidar-Sielaff, Ramona Natera, and Saejung Lee
status, the status is unclear, or they overstayed their visa, they are here undocumented, or they have committed a crime, that information
comes up and they may be subject to deportation from Dane County jail immediately,” she continued. “Remember that they were booked on
something unrelated to their immigration status. So that causes a lot of fear of coming in contact with law enforcement.” This also results in
cases of domestic violence being underreported, because people are afraid to be deported. Implementation of federal rules are not the same
for all counties, she explained, creating a situation where nobody really knows what to expect.
Ramona Natera (Immigration attorney- program manager for UMOS-United Migrant Opportunities Services)
After introducing herself as a fifth generation Mexican American born in Texas and raised in Wisconsin, Ramona Natera talked about UMOS
briefly, highlighting its provision of immigration services to migrant farm workers and immigrants. She is based in Madison (although UMOS
is based in Milwaukee), and her clients come from all over the state of Wisconsin. Natera’s areas of practice are family law and immigration,
and her clients are mostly poor. She said UMOS is targeting people who don’t make a lot of money because it is committed to helping them.
The cost of UMOS services is based on a sliding scale, depending on the individual’s ability to pay. UMOS provides an initial consultation fee
of $25 and then Natera makes referrals if she can’t accept the case such as a deportation, an employment-based or education-based case.
Natera then discussed family-based immigration or immediate -relative petitions, including when a U.S. citizen marries somebody from a
different country. “One of the things when marrying a United States citizen is that you are going to be under a microscope,” she explained,
adding that there are few remedies available to individuals who come to the U.S. to study or to work, and even fewer to those who come in
without any documentation. “The burden is … on the couple. If you apply before you’ve been married for two years, you will get a status, but it
will be conditional, which means within those two years, they can call you for an interview, they can have an investigator go and talk to your
neighbors … and it’s up to you to prove that it’s a valid marriage, was entered into in good faith, and you plan on staying married.” However,
considering the high divorce rate in the U.S., Natera said that USCIS won’t hold this couple to a higher standard than the average couple in the
U.S. “So there are provisions by which you can remove your condition. Either you are divorced or you are a victim of domestic violence. So
once you become a resident, if you do qualify to become a lawful permanent resident, based on marriage to a U.S. citizen, after three years, if
you’re still married to that citizen and still living with that citizen, you can apply to become citizen yourself. It’s complicated but it happens and
we’ve helped a lot of those cases.”
It is a harder situation for an undocumented, say from Mexico, who marries a U.S. citizen. “Unless they came in on a visa and overstayed
that visa, there’s really no way by which they can adjust their status in the United States,” Natera said matter-of-factly. “A lot of times, the only
possibility these individuals have adjusting their status is, by going back to Mexico and going through the consular process, and that’s a little
more complicated. It separates families; it’s really not an easy avenue by which to adjust, but at this point in time, unless there is some
reform, it seems that is one of their options.”
Natera explained that an immigration attorney provides people with options and explains the law. “For UMOS, it’s very important for us to
educate the community. Even if somebody doesn’t have a remedy at this point in time … there are possibilities for change.”
Carmel Capati (law partner with Saejung Lee-in an Immigration Employment Law Firm; runs the Court’s Interpreter Program for the State of
Wisconsin)
Carmel Capati comes from a mixed immigrant family from the Philippines. Her parents came to the U.S. as students and her sister was
born here. They later moved to Canada then back to the Philippines where she was born. The family moved to the U.S. when she was very
young and she became naturalized later after her parents became citizens.
As head of Wis. Supreme Court’s Interpreter Program, Capati trains and educates judges and interpreters who work in the court. “It’s not been
a popular program on some levels, because there’s not a lot of support for taxpayer money going to provide an interpreter for people who are
undocumented or committing a crime,” she lamented, “but it’s certainly important and the courts couldn’t run if they don’t have interpreters in
criminal or civil cases.”
On the issue at hand, Capati echoed the past speakers’ statement that the immigration system is broken but added an important facet to it.
“What we’re seeing in our law practice is certainly that the system is broken to the point that it encourages fraud — fraudulent marriages,
fraudulent documents, fraudulent everything,” she said. “Our clients, if they’re out of status and they’re not in deportation proceedings, they
are in limbo. They can’t really do anything, because if they do something that might notify USCIS, they might start deportation proceedings. But
then, on the flipside, if they don’t start something, and a deportation order is imposed, USCIS will say, ‘Why didn’t you file something? You had
all this time to file an asylum petition, why didn’t you do that?’ They’re not going to do that because … there isn’t anything compelling them to
do so.”
Fraud is also perpetrated by other lawyers, Capati observed. “There is fraud from our own colleagues, or maybe some less-than-reputable
attorneys, who will take advantage of our clients and charge exorbitant amount of money for doing some stupid petitions that won’t have any
chance of being successful at all. We see a lot of that in our practice. We actually have to fix … attorney after attorney … mess-ups, after they
charge clients $5,000, $10,000, to do nothing. They’re in the same situation that they were, only now they’re $10,000 in debt. We work with a
very vulnerable population. They come to us because they don’t know the laws. Certainly, even if you’d lived here in the United States, the
laws are complicated, and it is harder for those folks.”
Capati cited cases in the Cambodian community where “fraudulent” fiancées – who paid a lot of money to their “sponsors” — are being
brought over to the U.S. from Cambodia. “Once they’re here, they are deserted by their sponsors. So there is a growing population of fiancées
who came here thinking that they’re going to get married, but they’re not getting married.”
She agreed with Bidar-Sielaff’s observation that immigration can be a very divisive topic, adding that it doesn’t have to be. “In many ways, it’
s a political fiction that politicians use to gain support for whatever side they want to support. I get disappointed with immigration reform here.
I’m discouraged at the possibility of change here.”
Capati stressed that perhaps it would be better to focus on economic development in the countries where people are coming from, so they
don’t come to the U.S. in the first place. “We’re an over saturated population. No one wants us here in the U.S. anymore. It’s true. Mexico,
Philippines, and India are the top countries they do not want more immigrants from. There’s too many of us here I guess. I always feel that the
reform should be in the home countries of origin in the first place.”
Selected Q&A
Q: I’m worried about these kids who grow up undocumented. What’s their fate as they grow older if they stay undocumented?
A: That is a huge situation. I can go on, but we wonder if these kids have no hope. Right now, we can’t do anything but who knows in the
future, so we’re advocating for them, for a change in policy. It’s really important for us to advocate for changes in policy, because that’s the
only way for our voices to be heard. Let’s call on senators’ offices. Sen. Feingold is a big sponsor of the DREAM Act, we all need to call him
and tell him we are behind him on that.
Q: I’m totally in support of the DREAM Act but let’s say it gets passed, and an undocumented kid goes to do all these, don’t they put
themselves immediately at risk of being deported because they have no status?
A: All your life you always run the risk of being deported, even in high school … Although the university will not check, your roommate can
report you to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Anybody can report that you’re out of status. You’re always living under the fear of
being deported. There is no doubt about it. Even your neighbor who gets mad at you for not mowing your lawn, they will just call Immigration.
Q: Who’s responsible for the application process for citizenship for minors? Would it be their parents even if they’re undocumented, or the
child when he/she turns 18?
A: There has to be a sponsor. The parents can’t if they’re undocumented. The siblings can; whoever is willing to be the petitioner.
Q: If there is no one, how would they do it if they have no one to represent them?
A: They’re out of luck, unless they have a job, or get married. However, the problem is, if you’re undocumented, get married and apply for
citizenship or residency – the fact that you were here out of status to start with – undocumented – makes it very difficult.
Q: Is it possible for some people to adopt these minor children?
A: Yes, but it depends on what country you’re from. Also, it depends what age you’re being adopted. The provisions are very strict. It has to be
an orphan, like I cannot adopt my niece who’s undocumented. I can adopt an orphan from Mexico; but he/she has to live with me for at least
two years before the adoption process is final, and has to be no older than 16 before the adoption process is final. So, it’s not that easy.
Q: It’s hard to become a citizen, but could you become a resident?
A: Again, whether it is through family-based petition or employment-based, you have to have somebody to petition on your behalf. You cannot
just go to the USCIS website and fill out a form. You have to have somebody. Part of the process is that they have to submit an affidavit of
support, which says that person will be responsible for financial support for the immigrant for 10 years. It is a legally binding contract.
At the conclusion of the WOAA meeting, the group agreed to invite Sen. Feingold or his staff handling immigration reform – through Ashok
Bhargava — to the next WOAA meeting, and together with the Latino leaders in the community, discuss their concerns about comprehensive
immigration reform with him.
comes up and they may be subject to deportation from Dane County jail immediately,” she continued. “Remember that they were booked on
something unrelated to their immigration status. So that causes a lot of fear of coming in contact with law enforcement.” This also results in
cases of domestic violence being underreported, because people are afraid to be deported. Implementation of federal rules are not the same
for all counties, she explained, creating a situation where nobody really knows what to expect.
Ramona Natera (Immigration attorney- program manager for UMOS-United Migrant Opportunities Services)
After introducing herself as a fifth generation Mexican American born in Texas and raised in Wisconsin, Ramona Natera talked about UMOS
briefly, highlighting its provision of immigration services to migrant farm workers and immigrants. She is based in Madison (although UMOS
is based in Milwaukee), and her clients come from all over the state of Wisconsin. Natera’s areas of practice are family law and immigration,
and her clients are mostly poor. She said UMOS is targeting people who don’t make a lot of money because it is committed to helping them.
The cost of UMOS services is based on a sliding scale, depending on the individual’s ability to pay. UMOS provides an initial consultation fee
of $25 and then Natera makes referrals if she can’t accept the case such as a deportation, an employment-based or education-based case.
Natera then discussed family-based immigration or immediate -relative petitions, including when a U.S. citizen marries somebody from a
different country. “One of the things when marrying a United States citizen is that you are going to be under a microscope,” she explained,
adding that there are few remedies available to individuals who come to the U.S. to study or to work, and even fewer to those who come in
without any documentation. “The burden is … on the couple. If you apply before you’ve been married for two years, you will get a status, but it
will be conditional, which means within those two years, they can call you for an interview, they can have an investigator go and talk to your
neighbors … and it’s up to you to prove that it’s a valid marriage, was entered into in good faith, and you plan on staying married.” However,
considering the high divorce rate in the U.S., Natera said that USCIS won’t hold this couple to a higher standard than the average couple in the
U.S. “So there are provisions by which you can remove your condition. Either you are divorced or you are a victim of domestic violence. So
once you become a resident, if you do qualify to become a lawful permanent resident, based on marriage to a U.S. citizen, after three years, if
you’re still married to that citizen and still living with that citizen, you can apply to become citizen yourself. It’s complicated but it happens and
we’ve helped a lot of those cases.”
It is a harder situation for an undocumented, say from Mexico, who marries a U.S. citizen. “Unless they came in on a visa and overstayed
that visa, there’s really no way by which they can adjust their status in the United States,” Natera said matter-of-factly. “A lot of times, the only
possibility these individuals have adjusting their status is, by going back to Mexico and going through the consular process, and that’s a little
more complicated. It separates families; it’s really not an easy avenue by which to adjust, but at this point in time, unless there is some
reform, it seems that is one of their options.”
Natera explained that an immigration attorney provides people with options and explains the law. “For UMOS, it’s very important for us to
educate the community. Even if somebody doesn’t have a remedy at this point in time … there are possibilities for change.”
Carmel Capati (law partner with Saejung Lee-in an Immigration Employment Law Firm; runs the Court’s Interpreter Program for the State of
Wisconsin)
Carmel Capati comes from a mixed immigrant family from the Philippines. Her parents came to the U.S. as students and her sister was
born here. They later moved to Canada then back to the Philippines where she was born. The family moved to the U.S. when she was very
young and she became naturalized later after her parents became citizens.
As head of Wis. Supreme Court’s Interpreter Program, Capati trains and educates judges and interpreters who work in the court. “It’s not been
a popular program on some levels, because there’s not a lot of support for taxpayer money going to provide an interpreter for people who are
undocumented or committing a crime,” she lamented, “but it’s certainly important and the courts couldn’t run if they don’t have interpreters in
criminal or civil cases.”
On the issue at hand, Capati echoed the past speakers’ statement that the immigration system is broken but added an important facet to it.
“What we’re seeing in our law practice is certainly that the system is broken to the point that it encourages fraud — fraudulent marriages,
fraudulent documents, fraudulent everything,” she said. “Our clients, if they’re out of status and they’re not in deportation proceedings, they
are in limbo. They can’t really do anything, because if they do something that might notify USCIS, they might start deportation proceedings. But
then, on the flipside, if they don’t start something, and a deportation order is imposed, USCIS will say, ‘Why didn’t you file something? You had
all this time to file an asylum petition, why didn’t you do that?’ They’re not going to do that because … there isn’t anything compelling them to
do so.”
Fraud is also perpetrated by other lawyers, Capati observed. “There is fraud from our own colleagues, or maybe some less-than-reputable
attorneys, who will take advantage of our clients and charge exorbitant amount of money for doing some stupid petitions that won’t have any
chance of being successful at all. We see a lot of that in our practice. We actually have to fix … attorney after attorney … mess-ups, after they
charge clients $5,000, $10,000, to do nothing. They’re in the same situation that they were, only now they’re $10,000 in debt. We work with a
very vulnerable population. They come to us because they don’t know the laws. Certainly, even if you’d lived here in the United States, the
laws are complicated, and it is harder for those folks.”
Capati cited cases in the Cambodian community where “fraudulent” fiancées – who paid a lot of money to their “sponsors” — are being
brought over to the U.S. from Cambodia. “Once they’re here, they are deserted by their sponsors. So there is a growing population of fiancées
who came here thinking that they’re going to get married, but they’re not getting married.”
She agreed with Bidar-Sielaff’s observation that immigration can be a very divisive topic, adding that it doesn’t have to be. “In many ways, it’
s a political fiction that politicians use to gain support for whatever side they want to support. I get disappointed with immigration reform here.
I’m discouraged at the possibility of change here.”
Capati stressed that perhaps it would be better to focus on economic development in the countries where people are coming from, so they
don’t come to the U.S. in the first place. “We’re an over saturated population. No one wants us here in the U.S. anymore. It’s true. Mexico,
Philippines, and India are the top countries they do not want more immigrants from. There’s too many of us here I guess. I always feel that the
reform should be in the home countries of origin in the first place.”
Selected Q&A
Q: I’m worried about these kids who grow up undocumented. What’s their fate as they grow older if they stay undocumented?
A: That is a huge situation. I can go on, but we wonder if these kids have no hope. Right now, we can’t do anything but who knows in the
future, so we’re advocating for them, for a change in policy. It’s really important for us to advocate for changes in policy, because that’s the
only way for our voices to be heard. Let’s call on senators’ offices. Sen. Feingold is a big sponsor of the DREAM Act, we all need to call him
and tell him we are behind him on that.
Q: I’m totally in support of the DREAM Act but let’s say it gets passed, and an undocumented kid goes to do all these, don’t they put
themselves immediately at risk of being deported because they have no status?
A: All your life you always run the risk of being deported, even in high school … Although the university will not check, your roommate can
report you to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Anybody can report that you’re out of status. You’re always living under the fear of
being deported. There is no doubt about it. Even your neighbor who gets mad at you for not mowing your lawn, they will just call Immigration.
Q: Who’s responsible for the application process for citizenship for minors? Would it be their parents even if they’re undocumented, or the
child when he/she turns 18?
A: There has to be a sponsor. The parents can’t if they’re undocumented. The siblings can; whoever is willing to be the petitioner.
Q: If there is no one, how would they do it if they have no one to represent them?
A: They’re out of luck, unless they have a job, or get married. However, the problem is, if you’re undocumented, get married and apply for
citizenship or residency – the fact that you were here out of status to start with – undocumented – makes it very difficult.
Q: Is it possible for some people to adopt these minor children?
A: Yes, but it depends on what country you’re from. Also, it depends what age you’re being adopted. The provisions are very strict. It has to be
an orphan, like I cannot adopt my niece who’s undocumented. I can adopt an orphan from Mexico; but he/she has to live with me for at least
two years before the adoption process is final, and has to be no older than 16 before the adoption process is final. So, it’s not that easy.
Q: It’s hard to become a citizen, but could you become a resident?
A: Again, whether it is through family-based petition or employment-based, you have to have somebody to petition on your behalf. You cannot
just go to the USCIS website and fill out a form. You have to have somebody. Part of the process is that they have to submit an affidavit of
support, which says that person will be responsible for financial support for the immigrant for 10 years. It is a legally binding contract.
At the conclusion of the WOAA meeting, the group agreed to invite Sen. Feingold or his staff handling immigration reform – through Ashok
Bhargava — to the next WOAA meeting, and together with the Latino leaders in the community, discuss their concerns about comprehensive
immigration reform with him.