DOS asserts that the adjustment to the fee schedule is necessary because the current fees no longer cover the actual cost of processing nonimmigrant visas.  The nonimmigrant visa fee increase is thus expected to provide additional revenues to support the addition and expansion of overseas facilities, as well as additional staffing required to meet increased visa demand.

Applicants that paid visa fees before April 13, 2012 which will be increasing under the new fee schedule will not have to pay the difference between the new and old fee amounts, provided that their visa interviews take place on or before July 12, 2012.  Beginning July 13, 2012, these applicants will be required to pay the difference between the old and new fees.  Furthermore, Applicants who paid a visa fee before April 13, 2012, which will be decreasing under the new fee schedule will not receive a refund.

Go to the Press Release and Visa News to learn more.

This is the second round of funding in connection with Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGA) DOL published last year in the Federal Register. In the first round of funding last October, DOL awarded more than $159 million to 36 grantees. Between the two rounds of grants, more than $163 million has been designated to provide on-the-job training for U.S. workers in fields such as information technology, advanced manufacturing and health care.

The original SGA announced funding of $240 million to be awarded through two rounds of funding. However, about $100 million more than anticipated has been awarded as a result of additional H-1B visa fees collected.

The DOL press release includes a complete list of grantees, including their locations, award amounts and targeted industries.

The brief reports that USCIS adjudicators have significantly increased denials, as well as time-consuming RFEs, even though there has been no change in the law or relevant regulations during that time. Additionally, given the time and financial resources involved, employers are already selective about who they sponsor. Therefore, the high rate of denials and RFEs involve a pool of applicants who employers screened to meet the standard for approval, thus making the increase in denials difficult to justify. This dramatic increase raises questions about the training, supervision and procedures of USCIS adjudicators, and casts doubts over the U.S. government’s commitment to maintaining a stable business climate for companies competing in a global economy.

The brief also highlights reports of project delays and contract penalties suffered by companies doing business in the United States due to lost time resulting from this increase in denials and RFEs.  Such delays and penalties cost these companies millions of dollars and place them at a marked disadvantage with competitors that operate exclusively outside the United States. The brief finds that denying employers the ability to transfer in key personnel, or gain entry for a skilled professional harm innovation and job creation in the United States, encouraging employers to keep more resources outside the country to ensure predictability.

Among the findings contained in the brief are some particularly troublesome facts:

• Denial rates for L-1B petitions—used to transfer employees with “specialized knowledge” into the United States—rose 214 % from FY 2007 to in FY 2008, despite no change in the law or relevant regulations.  Denial rates remained high between FY 2009 and FY 2011. In addition, 63% of L-1B petitions in FY 2011 were subject to a RFE.
• Denial rates for L-1A petitions—used to transfer executives and managers into the United States—almost doubled from FY 2007 to FY 2011.
• Denial rates for H-1B petitions increased 263 % from FY 2007 to FY 2009, and remained higher than in the past for FY 2010 and FY 2011.
• Country specific data on new (initial) L-1B petitions indicate that USCIS is more likely to deny a petition from an Indian-born professional than nationals of other countries.

Established in the Fall 2003, the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, nonpartisan public policy research organization based in Arlington, Virginia focusing on trade, immigration and related issues. The organization’s reports can be found at www.nfap.com.

On Jan. 6, 2012, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) posted a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register outlining a proposed procedural change in the adjudication of the I-601, Application for Waiver of Ground of Inadmissibility, in cases involving spouses and/or children of United States citizens facing such bars to reentry. The proposed process would allow these individuals to apply for waivers of inadmissibility prior to departing the U.S. for an interview at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate abroad.

USCIS envisions that by allowing these individuals to apply for waivers in the U.S. and by making a provisional determination of waiver eligibility before the individuals appear for their immigrant visa outside the U.S. it will:

• provide a more predictable and transparent process;
• improve processing times; and,
• minimize the separation of U.S. citizens from their families.

USCIS also believes that the change would streamline the process for handling requests for these waivers, both within USCIS and the U.S. Department of State (DOS).  USCIS foresees that this change would serve to encourage those individuals who may be eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility to seek lawful readmission to the United States.

Grounds of inadmissibility: what are they?

Grounds of inadmissibility are statutorily prescribed reasons for which the United States government may deny an alien admission to the United States. The proposed procedural changes to the adjudication of waiver applications would be limited to applications to waive inadmissibility pursuant to sections 212(a)(9)(B)(i)((I) and (II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act which—subject to limited exceptions—provides that:

(I)  any person who leaves the United States after having been illegally present in the country for more than 180 days is barred from returning to the United States for a period of three (3) years; and

(II)  that any person who leaves the United States after having been illegally present in the country for more than a year is barred from returning to the United States for a period of ten (10) years.

Under current law, certain relatives of citizens and lawful permanent residents of the U.S. can apply for a waiver to allow them to return to their families by showing that their U.S. citizen family member would suffer an extreme hardship if they were unable to return to the United States. However, under current procedures they must first depart the United States to trigger the relevant ground of inadmissibility and apply for the waiver abroad. In most cases, these individuals and their families face lengthy waits of one to several years before they are reunited with their families.

Who would be eligible?

The proposed streamlined process would be limited to spouses and children of U.S. citizens planning to apply for an immigrant visa abroad who would require a waiver due to prior unlawful presence in the United States. However, when speaking of children, since under current law children under the age of 18 do not accrue unlawful presence—and therefore do not require a waiver—the proposed process would only benefit those children of U.S. citizens between 18 and 21 years of age.

USCIS states that it selected immediate relatives of U.S. citizens as the class of aliens to consider for this procedural change based on its policy objective of alleviating the extreme hardship suffered by U.S. citizens. Furthermore, USCIS asserts that its focus on U.S. citizens and their immediate relatives is consistent with the priority Congress has given in the immigration laws to family reunification.

Who would be left out?

It appears that sons or daughters of U.S. citizens over the age of 21 years, as well as spouses, and sons or daughters of lawful permanent residents of the United States will not be eligible for the proposed streamlined process even if they have a visa immediately available. Additionally, individuals who require waivers of inadmissibility for grounds other than prior unlawful presence in the U.S. will not be eligible for the proposed streamlined process and will be required to apply for a waiver abroad under current procedures.

These restrictions are hard to reconcile with Congress’s stated priority, as cited by USCIS, of promoting family reunification. Viewed from the family reunification point of view it is difficult to understand the exclusion of these family members from the proposed streamlined process, particularly in light of the fact that the process will not affect the rules for applying for lawful permanent resident status within the United States, nor the substantive requirements for the grant of a waiver.

How would the proposed process work?

Under the proposed process, eligible applicants would apply for a provisional waiver before leaving the United States for processing of their immigrant visa application at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad. However, if granted, the provisional waiver would not take effect until the applicant departs from the United States and triggers the covered ground of inadmissibility.

The applicant would then appear for an immigrant visa interview at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad where a final decision would be made concerning their eligibility.  If approved the applicant would be issued a visa for travel back to the United States.  If denied the applicant would have to remain outside the U.S. until expiration of their three or ten year bar to reentry.

Would the proposed process make it easier or less risky to apply?

The proposed process could potentially make it easier and faster to apply for waivers and immigrant visas abroad. It could also reduce the risk of harm that many individuals face when they have to go back for a prolonged period of time to a country where conditions are dangerous.

However, the proposed process would not change the requirements for obtaining an immigrant visa abroad or the standards for obtaining a waiver. Nor would it change the requirement that the applicant ultimately depart the United States to have his or her visa application processed at a consulate abroad. Notably, the proposed process would not allow applicants who are not otherwise eligible to apply for Adjustment of Status upon a grant of a provisional waiver; as such a change would require legislation.

Moreover, the provisional waiver covers only grounds of inadmissibility concerning prior unlawful presence. Accordingly, if a U.S. consular officer finds during an immigrant visa interview that the beneficiary of a waiver under the proposed streamlined process is subject to another ground of inadmissibility, the individual would need to file another waiver application with USCIS, presumably with an additional fee.

USCIS also contemplates that applicants under the proposed streamlined process would be scheduled for biometrics collection at a USCIS Application Support Center and, if denied, would be subject to removal (deportation) from the United States. Therefore, the proposed streamlined process is not likely to serve as a way for persons unlawfully present in the United States to seek a waiver without having to depart the United States as they would either depart upon approval of the waiver in order to apply for an immigrant visa, or would be placed in removal proceedings upon denial of their waiver application.

When will this streamlined process take effect?

The process will not be implemented until publication of a final rule by USCIS. USCIS thus warns that no one should file an application based on this proposed change until the final rule is issued and the change becomes effective. Any applications filed prior to the final rule will be rejected and the application package returned to the applicant.

USCIS has stated that in the coming months it will undertake further analysis and begin collaboration with the Department of State to develop the streamlined process in greater detail, leading to the publication of a proposed rule. USCIS will consider the comments received as part of that process before publishing a final rule.  In other words, it’s going to be a while.

Margo D. Beller

“X” Visas: Real Estate Investments of $500,000 or More Would Qualify

The VISIT-USA Act upon enactment would establish an X (non-immigrant) visa (renewable every three years) for foreign investors, and their accompanying spouse and children, who invest and maintain a total of $500,000 in U.S. residential real estate, of which at least $250,000 must be invested in a primary residence where the investor resides for a minimum of 180 days per year. Investors could rent any other properties, aside from the $250,000 primary residence, purchased to reach the required investment amount. The 180-day residency requirement is intended to make investors subject to federal and property taxes. The bill also would make investors ineligible to receive any type of public assistance.

“W” Visas: Canadian Retiree Visa

The bill also aims to encourage Canadian tourism to the U.S. by establishing a W (non-immigrant) visa for Canadian citizens over 50 years of age (and their accompanying spouse and children) who own a U.S. residence or rent a U.S. accommodation for the duration of their stay. These visas would be renewable every three years with a maximum authorized period stay of 240 consecutive days.

How Would Southwest Florida Benefit?

Southwest Florida is currently a favorite destination for many Canadian, German and South American visitors who like to vacation in the U.S. However, most of these can only travel to the U.S. as visitors, with a maximum stay under U.S. immigration law ranging from 90 days to six (6) months. These time limitations dissuade some visitors from purchasing vacation homes in the U.S. This bill would open the door for these individuals to further invest in the communities they vacation in. Additionally, many Canadian visitors who don’t remain in the U.S. for longer periods of time due to the current six (6) month limitation on their stay as visitors would be able to remain in the U.S. for up to 240 consecutive days.

But Wait, There’s More!

The VISIT-USA Act would also amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide qualifying nationals of China (PRC) with a five-year multiple entry/exit visitor visa. Most countries have reciprocal agreements with the U.S. that provide for up to a 10-year multiple entry visa. However, Chinese nationals are currently required to apply for a new visa every year.

The bill also seeks to create incentives for foreign visitors to visit the United States during low peak seasons by directing the Secretary of State to offer, for a fee, premium processing of visitor visa applications, and decrease non- immigrant visa applications and issuance fees in selected countries when there is a low demand for visitor visas from such countries.

What’s Next?

The bill is currently before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. You can track its progress at www.govtrack.us.

Many such legislative efforts are justified under the mantra of national security, creation and/or protection of jobs in the U.S economy. While both of these are worthy goals in a free and democratic society such as ours, such laws should not place undue burdens on the personal freedom of citizens and non-citizens alike.

Unfortunately, many such legislative efforts are falling short. Not only are they failing to deliver what they promise, i.e. more security and economic prosperity, but they are fostering an environment of militant enforcement and persecution.

Case in point is the recently enacted law in the State of Alabama, which among other things, requires that police check citizenship status of anyone during traffic stops and arrest anyone who doesn’t have proper identification in order to appear before magistrate. Under this new authority, Alabama police recently arrested a German national, legally employed in Alabama as a Mercedes-Benz Executive for failure to have a driver’s license or proper identification. Prior to enactment of this law, in Alabama, like most other states, a person without a license in their possession wouldn’t be arrested but instead would receive a ticket and a court summons.

These types of laws inadvertently result in anti-foreigner sentiment that is driving foreign investors and tourists away to other parts of the world. Unfortunately, the environment at the federal level is not much better. The enforcement focus of the Obama Administration and the U.S. Congress has led to inspection, enforcement and adjudication practices by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services that are earning our country a reputation for being more trouble than it’s worth when it comes to travel and investment. This is reflected by new government initiatives, such as the one I wrote about in USCIS to Announce Initiatives for Attracting Foreign Entrepreneurs and Investors.

Ironically, Fox News reports that the U.S. Department of Justice finds that the law has a negative effect on enforcement. The U.S. Attorney’s office states that the Alabama law hurts enforcement as it places additional demand on limited federal enforcement resources that could be more efficiently deployed toward higher agency priorities such as arrest, detention and removal of serious criminals.

As a new election year approaches, new proposals and legislative efforts are likely to be debated. After years of an “enforcement only” approach, we are now seeing some of the consequences. Our nation and its individual States may seek to enact similar laws and seek support from their constituents. CAVEAT EMPTOR!

On October 4, 2011, both houses of Congress held separate subcommittee meetings which addressed immigration issues. Specifically, the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, Refuges and Border Security heard testimony from several witnesses about the need for reform of the U.S. immigration policy towards migrant labor with respect to the agricultural industry. The general consensus among the “experts” was that of the 1.8 million manual labor farm jobs (primarily related to harvesting fruits and vegetables), between 1.2 million and 1.4 million of those positions were held by undocumented workers. Well, what would happen if all of the undocumented workers were deported? The answer, based on the testimony given, would surprise most Americans.

Myth #1:  Foreign Workers Hurt the U.S. Economy

First, it must be pointed out that for every “farm-job” (manual farm laborer), there are two “non-farm jobs” held primarily by U.S. citizens. In other words, migrant workers who work the fields support two others who work in the production, packaging and transporting of the crops; and since the vast majority of the non-farm jobs are held by U.S. citizens, then for each migrant worker deported, two Americans potentially lose their jobs. Consider, too, that when American farmers fail to produce, foreign farmers enjoy a greater market share in the U.S.

Myth #2: Foreign Workers Take Away American Jobs

Second, it is a myth of epic proportions that by deporting undocumented migrant workers, red-blooded Americans will step in to fill their shoes….therefore “creating” jobs. Multiple studies and programs across the United States have proven this hypothesis to be completely false. “Welfare to Work” programs have been initiated in several states over the past three decades in an attempt to fill tens of thousands of positions in the agri-business sector; all with dismal results. Why? As explained by Connie Horner, the owner-operator of an organic blueberry farm in Georgia, in her testimony to the Senate subcommittee: “I was calling three branches of the DOL (Department of Labor) several times a week, begging them for workers. The Americans interested in working wanted only air-conditioned positions and refused to work outside. [As a result,] About 80% of our fruit rotted on the bushes.”

Her story was not unique – many of those who testified provided vivid accounts of the tremendous losses suffered by farms in Georgia and other states that had recently adopted stringent laws regarding the hiring of workers. The migrant workers who left the affected states were not easily replaceable because Americans did not, and do not, want to work as manual laborers…..even though the country is suffering from record unemployment levels. Americans want “high-paying” skilled-labor positions; not back-breaking unskilled manual labor positions.

This fact was famously exposed by John McCain in 2006. Speaking to the AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Department on April 4 of that year, McCain asserted that immigrants were taking jobs nobody else wanted. As an example, he described the job of an iceberg lettuce picker – who have a four month harvesting season, with 12 hour days, seven days a week. When members of the audience yelled out “pay a decent wage”, McCain responded, “I will personally pay you $50 an hour if you work every day the entire season. You can’t do it, my friends.” Understanding the nature of migrant labor, John McCain has long championed the idea of a “guest-worker” program…..so far to no avail.

A related but often overlooked point is that wages for manual labor (“unskilled” positions) have historically been lower than wages for “skilled” positions. Raising wage rates significantly for unskilled labor would obviously increase the overall cost to the consumer. However, when faced with higher costs for goods produced in the U.S., American consumers would most likely purchase cheaper goods imported from abroad instead of purchasing the more expensive produce grown stateside. It is simply unrealistic to believe that farmers can easily pass on the added cost of higher wages to consumers. As one witness eloquently stated, “Immigrants will be picking the crops that we eat in America…the question is, will they be picking them in America or in foreign countries?”  The reality is that the commodities markets put downward pressure on wages, and for the American farmer to remain competitive, there has to be an adequate labor pool. This is where the migrant worker comes in.

Myth #3: The U.S. Welcomes “Legal” Immigrants

This leads us to the third myth that migrant workers can “stand in line like everyone else!” Well, what “line” are “they” referring to? Ellis Island in New York Harbor, the site of the nation’s busiest immigrant inspection station for decades, was closed in 1954 when the United States instituted major immigration reforms and ended “mass” immigration into the country. The fact is, there is no “line” for migrant workers to stand in to obtain visas to work in the U.S. Many Americans mistakenly assume that all an immigrant has to do, in order to legally come to the U.S. to work, is simply “stand in line” at the U.S. consulate in their home country, fill out an application, pay a fee, and wait their turn for a work visa. Our immigration system simply does not work in that manner; instead, employers have the burden of identifying prospective employees abroad and submitting an application for the appropriate visa petition(s) for those employees. Most of the employment-based visas are subject to hard caps set annually by Congress, and many years, the number of visas available for the several categories is woefully insufficient, especially during good economic times.

In an attempt to address the need for workers in the agricultural sector, the “H-2A” (Temporary Worker Performing Agricultural Services Unavailable in the United States) program was created without a hard cap. While well-intentioned, the program has been an abject failure. In very basic terms, the H-2A program works like this:

• a farmer tries to recruit local labor (U.S. citizens and residents permitted to work);
• if unsuccessful, he applies for a labor certification from the DOL to identify and recruit immigrant workers at a stated hourly rate;
• if approved, the farmer identifies the worker(s) and submits an application for each worker to the USCIS for an H-2A visa petition along with the approved labor certification;
• for each petition approved, a [visa] notice is sent to the farmer who then forwards it to the migrant worker;
• the migrant worker then takes the notice to the U.S. Embassy in their home country and applies for the specific visa approved in the notice;
• once the visa is issued, the migrant worker is inspected at the border, and assuming that everything is in order, the visa is stamped and the migrant worker is allowed to enter the U.S. and proceed to the job-site; and
• upon completing the approved job (i.e. the harvest), the migrant worker immediately exits the United States.

The fees for each H-2A visa exceed $1,500.00, and the paperwork is cumbersome and time-consuming, to say the least. If the migrant worker is rejected at the border, or is terminated by the farmer due to poor performance, the farmer cannot recover the money spent to obtain the visa for that employee. Because the H-2A process is expensive, paper intensive and time consuming (not to mention nonsensical), only 2% to 3% of farm jobs are filled by H-2A visa holders. Farmers across the board have stated emphatically that they want a legal, and reliable, workforce – unfortunately for them, the system is broken.

The real problem with the system is this:  migrant workers do not come to the U.S. to work only one job and then leave; they work several jobs harvesting different crops that mature at different times. In other words, migrant workers move from farm to farm as each crop matures and is ready to be harvested. Most crops have harvesting periods that last 4 to 6 weeks, and most migrant workers will harvest 3 to 5 crops over a 4 to 6 month period. The H-2A program simply does not provide the flexibility needed to allow migrant workers to migrate from job to job. And, as stated above, there is currently no visa available which would allow migrant workers to enter the country legally, let alone find and perform work as a migrant laborer.

Conclusion

What is the solution? Most everybody who works in immigration agrees that the United States needs to overhaul its immigration laws and systems; but, I believe this is too daunting a task to do in one fell swoop. It would make more sense to split up the reforms into four tranches:

• Address all employment-related visas first; this is the most complicated, and considering the state of the U.S. economy, is vitally important for a number of industries.
• Next, family-based visas should be addressed; the current system is archaic and, in some cases, draconian.
• The third step would be to address the remaining immigrants that do not fall within the employment-based or family-based categories.
• Finally, incorporate all three prior tranches into one comprehensive system.  Basically, put the system back together again by standardizing certain protocols and working out the bugs that have been identified since the “new” systems were put in place.

What is the biggest obstacle? Simply put, the biggest impediment to immigration reform is the politics involved. Ideally, congressmen and women from both sides of the aisle would step up and “de-politicize” the issues at hand and work in earnest to address these difficult but important matters. Realistically, it is highly unlikely that any kind of meaningful reforms will take place until after the 2012 general election, and this spells disaster for a number of industries, most especially the agricultural industry.

Recent Enforcement Activities

Despite the current campaign rhetoric wherein the Republican Presidential candidates continually complain of lax enforcement of our immigration laws, the reality is that the Obama administration has been very aggressive in locating and deporting “unauthorized” and “undocumented” persons in the United States regardless of any special circumstances. ICE (Immigrations and Customs Enforcement) officers have been making headlines by raiding businesses that have a large “unskilled” workforce in order to search for potential “illegal” aliens, despite the massive disruption to the businesses raided. This includes “I-9 Audits” of companies where ICE officers will review a company’s I-9 forms to verify that the I-9’s for employees of these targeted companies are in perfect order. Juxtapose this with the DOJ (Department of Justice) taking actions against employers who “do too much” to verify a person’s employment eligibility and you have created a nerve-racking environment for employers, just when employers need it most.

ICE has also been very active in the “Secure Communities” program where local law enforcement will contact ICE when they have detained a person (regardless of whether or not the person has committed an offense or is being questioned as a witness) whom they suspect might be in the country illegally. ICE officers then swoop in and take these persons into custody. As reported in Frontline’s “Lost in Detention” which aired on PBS Tuesday, October 18, 2011, some of those taken into custody do have the legal right to be in the U.S. or have special circumstances that warrant consideration, but the process as currently being implemented is harsh and unforgiving. (Some persons interviewed in the program state that the biggest supporters of the Secure Communities program are those who profit from it; specifically, the entities that construct and operate the detention facilities. That, however, is beyond the scope of this article.)

The DOL (Department of Labor) has also conducted a record number of “H-2” audits of businesses that have enrolled in the H-2 program to verify that these companies are in perfect compliance with the voluminous requirements of that program. The disruptive nature of these audits cannot be overstated, and the potential fines can be crippling to the businesses in these economically challenging times.

Likewise, CBP (Customs and Border Protection) officers have taken unprecedented measures to identify persons who might be in the United States without proper authorization or documentation. At the AILA (American Immigration Lawyers Association) Annual Conference in San Diego last June, participants at the conference complained that Border Patrol officers were taking draconian measures, such as “camping out” at daycare centers and schools trying to identify possible “illegal” aliens; and boarding outbound buses heading to Mexico to confirm that everyone aboard the bus had entered the U.S. legally. Those bus passengers without proper documentation were and are being removed from the buses and placed into deportation proceedings.

Net Results

The actions described above, especially the boarding of outbound buses, demonstrate that the goal is to maximize the numbers of persons to be deported; it certainly cannot be said that such actions make economic sense. Why else would the government “deport” someone who is already leaving? The number of deportations by the Obama administration supports this contention. During President George W. Bush’s eight years in office (remember, most of his presidency was post 9-11), his administration deported 1.57 million people; this averages out to approximately 200,000 people each year. Under President Obama, the administration announced a goal of deporting 400,000 people each year. According to the numbers released by the administration, ICE and CBP have detained and deported close to 400,000 the first two years of his administration, and are on track to exceed that goal (by a large margin) for the current year.

While many immigration “hawks” delight in these record numbers of deportations, it is not without costs to businesses and, in turn, the economy. Migrant workers and other “unskilled” positions are filled in many cases by immigrant workers. While the hawks claim that the immigrant workers drag wages for those jobs down, most economists disagree. In fact, economists like to say that “immigrants will be performing these non-skilled jobs, the questions is will they be performing them in the United States, or will they be performing them abroad?!”

I will be addressing some of the questions involving the immigrant workforce in my next post when I discuss the disconnect between the H-2A visa program (for temporary or seasonal agricultural workers) and the real needs of agri-businesses and migrant workers.

This year’s lottery will open at 12pm, EDT, on Tuesday, October 4, 2011 and will close at 12pm, EDT, on Saturday, November 5, 2011. Applicants must submit entries on-line during this period at www.dvlottery.state.gov. The application is fairly straightforward and generally does not require the assistance of an immigration lawyer to complete. However, if an applicant is selected, he or she must take certain steps to secure the visa opportunity and process the appropriate documentation within a specific timeframe, so it may be prudent at that point to engage an attorney for assistance navigating the process.  Also, if the foreign national has a criminal record, entered the US without permission, or stayed in the US beyond the date authorized by a nonimmigrant visa, he or she may also want to consult with an immigration attorney prior to entering the lottery Program.

While the Program is designed with the best of intentions, there have been an incredible number of scams over the years attempting to pray on those entering the lottery. Please beware of these scams!  The only way to determine whether you are selected in the lottery is to return to the website at www.dvlottery.state.gov beginning May 1, 2012 and login using your confirmation number. Successful applicants will then receive specific instructions of how to proceed to obtain the visa.

Please note that residents of the following countries are ineligible for the Program due to federal regulations: Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China (mainland-born), Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, South Korea, United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and Vietnam. For additional information, please visit http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types_1318.html.

Bouffard’s article keenly highlights how the polarized debate on illegal immigrants and the U.S. Immigration system has affected Florida business. Bouffard reports that Florida citrus growers feel that this year’s labor shortage was a consequence of a national and local political discussion focused only on aggressive enforcement of immigration laws, as a result of which, many of laborers left the state.  Bouffard’s states:

The [labor] shortage occurred — not coincidentally, many Florida citrus people said — as the Legislature was debating an Arizona-style immigration law that included mandatory e-Verify use, among other restrictions.”

Earlier this year, a state initiative promoted by Governor Rick Scott to mandate the use of E-Verify® by Florida employers failed to garner the necessary support in the Florida legislature. However, it is anticipated that such initiatives will be introduced during future legislative sessions.

Much is reported on the effects of illegal immigrants on our health care system, national security and educational system. However, Bouffard’s article sheds light on a point that is oft-ignored:  immigrants, including illegal immigrants contribute to our economy and society. The experience of the Florida Citrus Industry lends support to the argument that there are in fact jobs that Americans are unwilling to do, even if we deport all illegal aliens and close down the borders. It is naive to think that a deport-them-all approach without meaningful immigration reform that allows reasonable options for individuals and employers is a workable scheme.