Immigration Visa Attorney Blog

If the newspaper advertisement being used for a PERM Labor Certification contains language that certain requirements are "preferred," the certifying office (CO) officer will properly assume that "employer preferences are actually job requirements." Unless these requirements are included in the PERM application, the CO will properly deny the application. An example of this issue is a PERM Labor Certification filed by Eastern Tennessee State University (ETSU).

On August 21, 2007 ETSU filed an Application for Permanent Employment on behalf of a foreign national who was chosen for an assistant professor position. The CO issued an Audit Notification on November 19, 2007 and requested additional recruitment information. The CO specifically wanted copies of the job advertisements and other documentation that described the position. ETSU provided all of the necessary documentation. On August 28, 2009 the CO denied certification because of inconsistencies within the supplied documents. The CO stated that the Notice of Filing, job order, and job advertisements all contained job requirements that exceed those listed on the application. It was also noted that four minimally qualified American candidates were rejected during the hiring process. As a result, the CO concluded that ETSU did not conduct competitive or thorough job recruitment. ETSU filed a request for review on September 16, 2009. In the request, ETSU stated that the various recruitment documents did not include additional requirements. Instead, they explained that the extra skills listed were merely preferences. ETSU mentioned that the four American candidates were rejected because they were not fluent enough in Spanish. The CO forwarded the request for review to BALCA. Once ETSU responded with the intent of proceeding with the appeal, the CO sent a letter to BALCA that outlined the reasons that certification was denied.

Continue reading "PERM Labor Certification Advertisement Improperly Drafted Leads to Denial" »

When the employer is unable to provide adequate documentation of its internet advertisement due to internal company error, the Certifying Officer (CO) can properly deny an application for Labor Certification. One such example is a PERM Labor Certification filed by Trans Atlantic Systems, Inc.

On July 16, 2007 TAS filed an Application for Permanent Employment Certification on behalf of a foreign national that they selected for a professional programmer position. On September 11, 2007 the CO issued an Audit Notification. Among other issues, CO asserted that TAS had not provided enough documentation to show that the experience requirements found in the job advertisement were considered appropriate business necessity. TAS complied and provided more documentation which included copies of job requirements, the recruitment report, the Notice of Filing, evidence of the employee referral program, and the newspaper advertisements for the position. On November 29, 2007 the CO denied the certification because TAS had not provided documentation of its internet advertisement. TAS submitted a request for review on December 13, 2007 stating that the recruitment report should be accepted as sufficient evidence to prove that the company had met the application requirements. TAS explained that there was no record of the requested internet advertisement due to an internal error within the company. On appeal to BALCA, TAS submitted the recruitment report in place of the required documentation of the internet job advertisements and made the same argument that its report should be sufficient evidence of the internet advertisement. The CO filed an appellate brief which explained that a lack of specific documentation in this case was a valid reason for denying certification.

Continue reading "PERM Labor Certification Filing Requires Strict Regulatory Compliance" »

A proposed bill that would significantly raise H-1B and L1 visa application fees for companies with more than 50 percent of their work force on H-1B or L1 status with more than 50 employees was passed in the Senate Friday, August 6, and the House Tuesday, August 10. H1B visas are used for professionals coming to the United States to work for U.S. employers. L1 visas are intra-company transfer visas, for employees of companies that operate in the U.S. and abroad. USCIS wasted no time and announced on Aug 19th that new applications must immediately pay the fee or explain why the fee is inapplicable. This law raise the application fee for visas for skilled workers by at least $2,000. The H-1B visa will be raised to $2,320 from $320, and the L1 visa will be raised to $2,570 from $320. The fees will apply to companies who use visas for more than 50 percent of its employees. The additional $600 million that will be generated by the fee hike will be used to construct operating bases and deploy surveillance drones in efforts to secure the U.S.-Mexico border. The bill passed by the House was slightly different than that of the Senate, It was back to the Senate for approval and has been signed into law by President Obama.

Continue reading "Visa Application Fee Hike: Punitive or Functional? " »

As of August 20, there were approximately 33,900 filed cap eligible petitions for the H-1B regular cap, and approximately 12,600 cap eligible petitions for the H-1B Master's exemption.

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issues H-1B visas to employers to enable them to hire foreign employees to work in specialty occupations. All individuals who are issued an H-1B visas must possess a Bachelor's degree or higher. The cap limit for regular H-1B visas is 65,000. The USCIC issues an additional 20,000 H-1B visas to individuals with a Master's degree or higher under the advanced degree exemption.
Applicants could begin submitting petitions since April 1. Petitions will be accepted until limitations have been reached. Once the cap limit has been reached, applicants must wait for the next fiscal year to apply for the H-1B visas

This is the third of a three blog series reviewing a lawsuit that was filed with the District of Columbia Federal court challenging the Neufeld Memo. The first and second blogs focused on the Plaintiffs' complaint and the request for a preliminary injunction. This blog will detail Homeland Security's response to the lawsuit as well as responding to the claims asserted by the Plaintiffs. On June 8, 2010 five specialty businesses filled a lawsuit against the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The Defendants were given until June 25, 2010 to respond in opposition to the Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction. The Defendants (USCIS and Homeland Security) structured their argument focusing on the technical aspect of the law suit.

In their opposition, the Defendants highlight the specific points that they would like the court to consider when deciding whether or not to grant the preliminary injunction. First, they asked the court to consider the Plaintiffs likelihood of success in their claims. The Defendants argue that it is impossible for the Plaintiffs to show a substantial likelihood of success due to the nature of the challenge. The Plaintiffs argue that the policy change that appeared in the Neufeld Memo was not subject to the comment and rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Defendants contest that the changes that occurred were simply a set of flexible guidelines that were intended to assist agency workers as they assess H-1B applications. As a result, the APA standards do not even apply to the Neufeld Memo. Second, the Plaintiff asked the court to take into account whether the Plaintiffs will suffer irreversible injury if the preliminary injunction is not granted. The Plaintiffs alleged harm alleged is speculative. For this reason, the inability to prove that irreversible harm means that this case is not urgent and does not warrant a preliminary injunction. Third, they asked the court to examine if the injunction will have a negative impact on USCIS. The Defendants state that the intent of the Neufeld Memo was to formulate a guide or reference for the agency when H-1B visa applications are being reviewed. In the past, there had been confusion in defining and interpreting the employer-employee relationship. The Defendants believe that issuing a preliminary injunction would stall the need to clarify and further refine the process of interpretation. Finally, they asked the court to consider if granting an injunction will further public interest. The Defendants assert that issuing a preliminary injunction will harm public interest because the public will be deprived of useful and clear information regarding the USCIS regulation. Without the Neufeld Memo, the public will not know what guidelines the USCIS uses for issuing H-1B visas, they state.

Continue reading "H-1B Attorney on Broadgate et al. v. USCIS: Response by Homeland Security" »

This is the second of a three blog series reviewing a lawsuit that was filed with the District of Columbia Federal court challenging the H-1B Neufeld Memo. In the first blog we discussed the complaint filed in court. This blog will detail the Application for Preliminary Injunction filed by the plaintiffs. On June 8, 2010 five specialty businesses (Plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit against the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for the harmful effects that the Neufeld Memo has had on not only their business, but also on their foreign employees who are required to obtain H-1B visas. The intent of the lawsuit is to request a preliminary and then possibly a permanent injunction that would stop the USCIS from further implementing the Neufeld Memo.

The Plaintiffs are requesting that the court orders an injunction due to the serious and lasting consequences that the Neufeld Memo has had on the small business sector. A court ordered injunction would be preliminary at first, but if certain adjustments are not made then the injunction would be permanent. In the motion filed with the court, the Plaintiffs asserted that the court could easily issue the injunction because the changes in the policy, through the Neufeld Memo, were made without following standard rule making procedures. The Neufeld Memo specifically went against the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) which requires that changes to federal regulations must be weighed against the needs and abilities of the small business sector. The Plaintiffs stressed, in the motion filed before the court that, if an analysis had been performed, it would have been obvious that the policy changes needed further consideration due to the importance of H-1B visas to small specialty businesses nationwide. As a result of the Neufeld Memo, it is estimated that the economic impact on the small business sector is $100 million per annum. The Plaintiffs asserted that without an injunction, the H-1B petitions will continue to be denied and they will be unable to sustain their businesses.

Continue reading "Columbus Immigration Attorney on Broadgate et al. v. USCIS: The Injunction" »

The controversy surrounding the 14th Amendment, which specifies that all children born in the United States are automatically U.S. citizens, continues. The discussion in the last 10 years is rooted in the debate over illegal immigration from Mexico and border security. Those who have initiated the movement claim that a large number of illegal immigrants come to the United States specifically to have a child, or a so-called "anchor baby," so that the parents would be able to remain in the United States due to being the parents of an American citizen. Proponents of overturning the 14th Amendment state that anchor babies often qualify for government assistance, which makes it more difficult to deport their illegal parents. However, there is no evidence to support the claim that deportation of parents of anchor babies is any more difficult than the deportation of other illegal immigrants.

Those that argue for a change in current laws claim that there are a large number of children born to illegal immigrants within United States borders each year. They point to 2008 data that shows that one out of every 12 children born in the United States were born to illegal immigrants, according to a study by Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research organization. This translates into approximately 340,000 babies who were given automatic U.S. citizenship out of the 4.3 million babies born in the U.S. that year. While the debate continues, we must consider what this may mean for the United States if the 14th Amendment is indeed overturned.

According to the study, as of 2009, more than 75 percent of illegal immigrants in the United States were Latinos. As the law stands now, if the parents of U.S. citizens are found to be in this country illegally, the parents would still be deported to their country of origin. Would the risk of deportation for the entire family actually stifle the high number of unauthorized immigrants who enter the country each year? Possibly. As the law stands now, children of illegal immigrants who were given automatic citizenship have the opportunity to act as a sponsor for family members for entry into the U.S. at the age of 21. If the opportunity of future sponsorship did not exist, some argue that having children in the U.S. would be less attractive. But is this approach Constitutional?

There is no study that shows, however, that changing the 14th Amendment will in fact alter the future data of US born children to foreign born parents. The truth is most parents would like their children born in the US, a country that at the core of its success is the fair and equal treatment of all persons. The concept of having classes of individuals born in the US but in fact are not US citizens flies in the face of many of the basic values we hold so dear to our hearts as Americans.

Currently the majority of Americans oppose changing the 14th Amendment, as 56 percent of Americans are against changing citizenship provisions, according to the Pew Research Center.

This is one of three blog series which will provide an insight into a lawsuit which was filed in the District of Columbia Federal court challenging the new H-1B Neufeld Memo which had an impact on H-1b applications in the US including Columbus, Ohio and Troy Michigan. On January 8, 2010 the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a memorandum known as the Neufeld Memo which sets a new standard in determining employer-employee relationship when adjudicating newly filed H-1B petitions. In the complaint, the plaintiffs argue that change in policy amounts to a change in the law without congressional mandate or following proper rulemaking procedure and has had an immediate and harmful effect on the small businesses in the United States that hire foreign professionals on H-1B visa. The plaintiffs comprise of five companies have decided to challenge the memorandum in a federal district court. The companies include three software development firms and two not-for-profit trade associations (Plaintiffs). The lawsuit was filed in June 8, 2010.

In the complaint, Plaintiffs explained that for nearly half a decade, staffing companies and small businesses in the United States have been hiring temporary and long-term employees for specialty positions on H-1B visas. Before granting a visa, the USCIS assesses whether or not there is an employer-employee relationship. An employer must have the ability to hire, fire, pay, and supervise the H-1B employee. In many instances the employment situation regarding these visas does tend to be different because the process normally involves three parties. There is the business seeking the skills of the employee, the foreign professional seeking employment, and a staffing firm that is also involved in the process as the actual employer of the H-1B foreign national. Due to the nature of these working relations, the employees are often hired as employees to the staffing company and is being contracted out to provide services often in the area of Information Technology. This specific multi party relationship created the loophole that triggered USCIS improper change in the law.

Continue reading "H-1B Immigration Attorney on Broadgate et al. v. USCIS: The Complaint" »

On June 28, 2010 the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari (for review) in a case that questions the legality of the proposed Legal Arizona Workers Act. Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. v. Napolitano, 558 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2009), cert. granted sub nom. Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria, (June 28, 2009) (No. 09-115) . The case directly challenges the Arizona state law that intends to prohibit employers from intentionally hiring unauthorized immigrants and mandates how employers should verify employees. The petition that was sent to the Supreme Court states that the Arizona law is preempted by federal law. In other words, the court will answer the question if Arizona law is stepping into an area that is reserved for the federal government not for the individual States. What the Supreme Court will answer is can each state creates its own system of penalties and verification to immigration violations or this area is reserved for the federal government.

The Petition for the Writ of Certiorari requested that the Supreme Court reexamine the actions and findings of the lower courts. The district court and the Ninth Circuit both ruled that the Arizona statute was not preempt by federal law in two specific areas. Both courts concluded that the statute fell within the savings clause of the preemptive provision in the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). They also ruled that Congress did not specify that states could not require employers to participate in the electronic verification system for checking the status of immigrants. The petition's main focus is that federal immigration laws preempt the proposed state laws.

Continue reading "Supreme Court to Analyze the Legality of the Legal Arizona Workers Act " »

I receive many calls daily requesting recommendations on immigration related matters. Like most lawyers, I am reluctant to provide legal advice based on general information over the phone. My response to most calls is that I will need to review the case records in details before I can give you an informed opinion. There is a very good reason why attorneys don't like to give phone advice. In most cases an attorney's advice over the phone is incomplete and could be flat out wrong because the attorney does not have all the information. What appears to be a simple question can be easily answered in a misleading way inadvertently.

One example of such situation is a phone call I received from a lady in 2005 who was calling on behalf of her husband, and the father of her two children. She wanted to know if a conviction of Trafficking in Cocaine is a deportable offense. As a first impression, most readers will believe that you don't need an attorney to answer this question. In fact most attorneys will probably respond by saying, obviously: yes it is a deportable offense and it probably is. Of course it does not answer the question the lady really wanted answered which is whether her husband's conviction of Trafficking in Cocaine is a deportable offense. I politely explained to her that the conviction does not appear encouraging but a quick response to a question as such over the phone cannot do justice to deciding if her husband has any chance of staying in the US. I informed her that I would need to know more to be able to answer the question and I asked her to send the conviction records and also informed her that I would need to charge a fee to provide sound legal advice.

Upon reviewing the records of convictions and analyzing the Ohio Revised Code definition of "Trafficking in Cocaine" as the conviction was in Columbus, Ohio, I found a deficiency in Ohio law in its definitions. This told me that her husband had a chance to remain in the US. I met the husband and the family and I was convinced that he has been rehabilitated and felt that I would do good if I can help keep the father with his family in the US. In addition the facts of the case were stunning. This person who is convicted of Trafficking in Cocaine in Ohio never in fact sold, or possessed drugs ever. Ohio's harsh law that convicts people with such crime without the person ever selling or possessing drugs must not be used to separate this family.

Continue reading "Mendieta-Robles v. Gonzales: "Offer To Sell" Not Considered An Aggravated Felony. Why It Pays To Pay An Attorney For Advice. " »

Certain acts, events or circumstances can render a foreign national ineligible for a visa or inadmissible to the United States. One such event is certain criminal convictions.It matter not if such conviction occurred in Columbus, Ohio, Troy Michigan, or anywhere in the US or overseas. Any foreign national that is convicted of, or admits to having committed, a crime of moral turpitude or a violation of any U.S. or foreign law or regulation relating to most controlled substances is considered inadmissible. Generally, a foreign national seeking admission to the United States who has committed a crime of moral turpitude would need to apply for a waiver of inadmissibility using Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Ground of Inadmissibility. However, there are exceptions to the rule of inadmissibility.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II), a foreign national who has committed a single crime of moral turpitude will still be admissible if the maximum penalty possible for the crime is less than one year imprisonment and the foreign national was not sentenced to more than six months in prison. If the foreign national's conviction falls under the aforementioned Petty Offense Exception, they need not apply for a waiver of inadmissibility. Along the same lines, a foreign national's petty offense crime cannot be used against them as evidence of bad moral character for purposes of voluntary departure or to stop the clock for cancellation of removal.

It is important to remember that under the Petty Offense Exception the foreign national's conviction or admission must be their first and only crime. Notably, the foreign national need not be convicted of the crime to be deemed to have committed the crime for admissibility purposes. If a foreign national admits to having committed a crime, or even admits to having committed the elements of a crime, the Department of Homeland Security will treat such admissions the same as if the foreign national was actually convicted of the crime. Thus, foreign nationals should be aware of, and immigration attorneys should counsel their clients on, the consequences of making admissions to the Department of Homeland Security.

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has been continually threatened with lawsuits ever since the Neufeld Memorandum on Determining Employer-Employee Relationship for Adjudication of H-1B Petitions, Including Third-Party Site Placements was released. On June 8, 2010, precisely six months after the Neufeld Memorandum was released, the first lawsuit was filed against the USCIS, USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. Several IT staffing companies and two staffing associations, namely Broadgate, Inc., Logic Planet, Inc., DVR Softek Inc., TechServ Alliance and American Staffing Association (Plaintiffs), have filed a five count complaint in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In addition, the Plaintiffs have filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction preventing the agency from enforcing the policies contained in the Neufeld H-1B Memorandum until their claims can be decided by the Court.

The basis for the lawsuit is no secret or surprise. Although IT consulting and other staffing companies have a well-established history of sponsoring and employing H-1B workers, the Neufeld H-1B Memorandum's guidance makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for such companies to be H-1B visa sponsors. In fact, there have been reports that numerous IT consulting companies have closed due to the negative impact the Neufeld H-1B Memorandum has had on their ability to sponsor H-1B professionals. The supposed motivation behind the Neufeld H-1B Memorandum was to prevent staffing companies from sponsoring H-1B workers who were, in turn, hired out to other companies that were abusing or fraudulently using the workers. Unfortunately, the USCIS went so far in its efforts to prevent a small number of staffing companies from committing fraud that its guidance wrongfully prevents virtually all staffing companies from employing H-1B workers altogether.

In the complaint, Plaintiffs are alleging the USCIS has illegally changed the law regarding whether staffing companies have the requisite control over their employees to qualify as H-1B employers. Count one of the complaint claims the USCIS violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by issuing a new rule without following the proper rule-making procedures and seeks to have the memorandum vacated. Count two of the complaint claims a violation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act for failing to analyze the new rule's impact on small businesses. The third, fourth and fifth counts allege the USCIS has exceeded its statutory and regulatory authority, that the memorandum is arbitrary and capricious, and that the memorandum is not authorized by law.

Broadgate, Inc., Logic Planet, Inc., DVR Softek Inc., TechServ Alliance and American Staffing Association have finally done what many groups have been threatening to do since the Neufeld H-1B Memorandum was first issued on January 8, 2010. The immediate motion for a preliminary injunction, if granted, may give staffing and consulting companies some relief in the short term. In the long term, hopefully this challenge will not only be successful in reversing the Neufeld H-1B Memorandum's ill-conceived guidance, but also make the USCIS think twice before hastily issuing new rules without following the proper rule-making procedures.

Our firm has recently learned that, in light of the Neufeld H-1B Memorandum, certain ports of entry are more vigilantly checking the Labor Condition Applications (LCA) of H-1B visa holders. Immigration officers are reviewing the LCAs of H-1B visa holders to confirm the end client work location matches the work location indicated on the LCA. If the end client work location does not match the information on the LCA, immigration officers are finding H-1B visa holders inadmissible. While this procedure may not seem atypical or unjust, it has come to our attention that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is using LCA inspections as a means of testing the validity of the H-1B employer-employee relationship.

CBP's newly found emphasis on verifying the validity of the employer-employee relationship is undeniably based on the controversial Neufeld H-1B Memorandum on the H-1B Employer-Employee Relationship. In addition to memorandum's conflicting guidance regarding the standard of employer control, the Neufeld H-1B Memorandum has received harsh criticism for unilaterally implementing new immigration laws without following the proper rule-making procedures. In response to these concerns, the United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) vaguely suggested that it would "take it under advisement." However, the practices is in place at certain ports of entry indicate that the USCIS's controversial memo is finding its way to CBP's screening process as an enforcement tool at certain locations.

By way of example, an H-1B visa holder recently traveled to India and returned through the Newark International Airport in New Jersey. Upon his return from India, the foreign national was going to be working as an IT consultant at a client site in Redmond, Washington. Though an amended LCA was filed with the proper work location, the foreign national did not have a copy of the new LCA. At the inspection point, the foreign national was asked by the CBP officer to produce his current LCA. The H-1B visa holder only had a copy of his previous LCA, which indicated his work locations were Texas and Georgia. The CBP officer informed the H-1B visa holder that his LCA did not demonstrate the proper H-1B relationship with his employer. The CBP officer then stated he should withdraw his H-1B extension application, go back to India and reapply. Even though the foreign national's work location was properly documented in an amended LCA, he was deemed inadmissible for not being able to produce the new LCA at the port of entry.

Despite the controversial nature of the Neufeld H-1B Memorandum, DHS appears to be enforcing the the policies promulgated therein. Unfortunately, until the Neufeld H-1B Memorandum is retracted, H-1B visa holders are required to abide by its contents. To avoid any issues at the border, all H-1B visa holders should be advised to not only file a new LCA for any change in end client work location, but also promptly amend their H-1B petition accordingly. And above all, the H-1B visa holder should be sure to carry documentation that accurately reflects their current employment situation, including copies of their the most recent LCA and H-1B petition with up-to-date work location information.

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issues 65,000 new H-1B visas annually for individuals with a Bachelor's degree or higher who will be working in a specialty occupation. In addition, the USCIS issues 20,000 H-1B visas to individuals with a Master's degree or higher under the advanced degree exemption every year. The H-1B fiscal year begins on October 1st, but the USCIS begins accepting petitions for the new fiscal year on April 1st. The USCIS will continue to accept petitions until the annual limitation on H-1B visas has been reached. Once the yearly cap has been fulfilled, H-1B hopefuls must wait until the next H-1B fiscal year to apply for an H-1B visa.

The time frame in which the H-1B cap is reached has varied from year to year. For instance, for Fiscal Year 2005, reverted to 65,000 limit, it was not filled until October 1, 2004. For Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007 it, likewise, took the cap a few months to be exhausted. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2008, though, the USCIS was flooded with H-1B petitions on April 1st, enough to exhaust the entire fiscal year cap by April 2, 2007. At that point, the USCIS instituted a lottery just to determine which of the hundreds of thousands of H-1B petitions received would be processed. This trend continued into Fiscal Year 2009, as well. Unlike the previous two years, however, the Fiscal Year 2010 cap remained open until December 21, 2009. At that time, it was becoming clear that the downturn in the U.S. economy was slowing the demand for new H-1B workers.

Unfortunately, the Fiscal Year 2011 demand for H-1B visas does not seem to have increased any from Fiscal Year 2010 and may, in fact, be lower. As of May 14, 2010, the USCIS had received only 19,000 cap-subject H-1B petitions and 8,100 cap-exempt H-1B petitions. This is far fewer petitions than had been received by this time last year. In comparison, the USCIS had received 45,000 cap-subject petitions and 20,000 cap-exempt petitions by May 18, 2009. It appears that much like the Fiscal Year 2010 H-1B visa cap, the Fiscal Year 2011 H-1B visa cap will take many months to reach. It is even possible that, for the first time since the mid 1990's, the H-1B, it will not be completely filled before the next H-1B fiscal year begins. However some trend analysts still predict that the H-1b cap will be reached this year around November. Only time will tell when.

In light of the immigration law recently passed in Arizona, similar legislation has been proposed in other states and, unfortunately, Michigan will be no exception. House Representative Kim Meltzer announced on May 7, 2010 that she is in the process of drafting and will be introducing an immigration bill modeled after the Arizona law in the Michigan Legislature. Though the actual bill has not yet been introduced, Representative Meltzer has been speaking publicly about the contents of the fledgling bill.

In particular, the proposed bill would give Michigan law enforcement the authority to inquire about an individual's immigration status if they have been stopped for any lawful reason. The stopped individual can be questioned about and required to prove their lawful status on the spot. Any individual that cannot prove their lawful status risks being arrested. Interestingly, according to Representative Meltzer, a Michigan Driver's License would be acceptable proof of lawful status. This begs the question, will the inability to produce a Michigan Driver's License lead to the presumption that an individual is not lawfully in the United States?

Representative Meltzer has stated the bill would prevent law enforcement from solely considering race, color or national origin when questioning an individual about their immigration status. The exact language of the bill remains to be seen, but based on Representative Meltzer's comments race, color and national origin can be a consideration, just not the only consideration. If the bill is in fact drafted in such a fashion, it would essentially be giving law enforcement the ability to discriminate and racially profile. Regardless of the reasons, discriminatory conduct and racial profiling should never be tolerated, let alone legalized by the Legislature.

There are several immigration-related bills that have been introduced in the Michigan Legislature not patterned after the Arizona law, including one which was just passed into law. The new law requires employers that are servicing public contracts to verify the legal status of their workers. The new law also prevents cities and counties from enacting legislation that restrains local authorities enforcement of immigration-related laws, otherwise known as sanctuary ordinances. There are also bills pending in the Michigan Legislature that require heightened scrutiny and additional verification of the employment authorization of foreign national workers.

With each immigration law passed at the state level, the immigration system becomes more and more fractured at the national level. Michigan is not the first state, and it certainly will not be the last state, to try to address the national system's deficiencies through mis-guided policies at the state level. These state immigration laws are a clear indication of more to come and Congress would be wise to reform immigration at the national-level before each state takes it upon itself to enact its own immigration law.