Home | Our Constitution | Our Projects | Business Opportunities |
Links | Annual Reports

May PEACE Prevail in Sierra Leone!
May PEACE Prevail on Earth!

Private Bill: Against All Odds - Guy Taylor Granted Green Card

President Clinton signed a dozen private immigration bills in November. One of them was a bill to grant our client Guy Taylor permanent residence in the U.S. Reading about Guy's incredible story may be beneficial to other persons seeking permanent residence as well as to other immigration attorneys.

I first met Guy and his grandmother Oleta Hansen in the summer of 1996. Guy was a shy 16-year-old Canadian kid who had just become a orphan when his mother died of a drug overdose. His father had died before his birth, and his entire remaining family lived in the U.S. In fact, Guy had spent half of his life living and going to public schools in Southern California. When Guy called his grandmother in California to tell him that his mother had died, she immediately flew to Vancouver. Not knowing what U.S. immigration laws required, she went to court where a Canadian judge awarded her guardianship of her grandson.

However, when she presented the guardianship papers to an INS inspector at the airport, he scheduled Guy for a deferred inspection in Los Angeles. I accompanied the family to the INS district office where Guy was issued a one-year humanitarian parole. Little did we realize that we would have to renew the parole twice before Guy could obtain permanent residence in the U.S. At Guy's request, he was also issued a work permit so that he could help pay his grandparents back for all they were doing for him. The INS officers in Los Angeles suggested to Guy and his family that he apply for "derivative citizenship" since his grandmother was a U.S. citizen.

However, since I had worked as a Citizenship Attorney for INS in Los Angeles in the late 1970's, it was painfully clear to me that Guy did not meet the requirements for derivative citizenship. Neither was he eligible for permanent residence through adoption. In order to qualify, the adoption would have had to occur prior to his 16th birthday. The family's friends and relatives all had suggestions. I learned that Oleta had a touch of Choctaw blood. The Choctaws issued Guy a card which certified that he was a member of the Choctaw Nation. However, our research told us that Guy would have to have at least 50% Choctaw blood to qualify as a U.S. citizen. In my opinion, Guy's best chance was to apply to be deemed a "dependent" of the juvenile court. This status would enable him to become a permanent resident as a "special immigrant". The Department of Children Services in Los Angeles assured us that Guy would qualify.

However, since Guy lived with his grandparents in neighboring Orange County, the Department of Children Services in that county would have to take Guy's case to court. We contacted the Department of Children's Services in Orange County to seek their assistance. A department head informed us that since Guy was not abused and was living with his grandparents, he could not be considered as "abandoned". We explained his situation in detail, but to no avail. In desperation, we contacted Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). After a sternly-worded letter from her office, we received a phone call from Orange County's Department of Children's Services. We were informed that the first supervisor that we had spoken with was mistaken. Guy was indeed "abandoned", and the County Counsel would obtain an order from a "referee" declaring Guy to be a "dependent" of the Juvenile Court. No attorney from our office needed to appear. The court order would be obtained and mailed to us within 48 hours. A couple of days later, I received a phone call from the County Counsel's office. The referee had ruled that Guy was living happily with his grandparents and, therefore, was not abandoned. Guy and his grandparents never even got the chance to speak at the hearing. All they could do was file an appeal, an appeal which might not be decided for years! We needed to call attention to Guy's plight so we held a press conference. Newspapers, radio and television stations in California and Canada covered the story. After the stories ran, we received strong support from the public. The prevailing attitude was disbelief. Why did the laws make it so difficult for an orphaned child with no family outside the U.S. to live with his grandparents? Mike Downey, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, wrote a column about Guy. Mike asked me to keep in touch with him about Guy's case. Eventually, all the hoopla came to an end. Still, no resolution was in sight. We decided that the only way Guy could remain in the U.S. was by means of a private immigration bill granting him permanent residence. We knew that this was a long shot. During the past two-year congressional session, less than half a dozen private immigration bills were enacted into law. Nevertheless, we decided to give it a try.

Guy's grandmother and her friends gathered more than 1,000 signatures on a petition requesting that their local congressman introduce a private bill on Guy's behalf. Armed with these petitions, she and Guy met with their congressman. The congressman asked Guy what he planned to do if he were granted permanent residence. Guy explained to him that he wanted to enlist in the U.S. Army. The congressman suggested that he join the Canadian Army. The meeting went downhill from there. Sobbing, Guy's grandmother called me and told me that the congressman had refused to sponsor a bill to help Guy. "He even asked Guy if he had any tattoos!", she cried. I told her that even though this was a setback, it was not the end of the road, not by a long shot. I spoke with Mike Downey at the Times. Mike wrote a terrific follow-up column about Guy entitled "One Last Hope For A Teenager Who Desires A Break". This column came to the attention of Senator Feinstein, and when Congress convened on January 24, 2000, our prayers were answered. Just after a bill on behalf of Elian Gonzalez (S.1999) was introduced, Senator Feinstein introduced S.2000, a bill to grant Guy Taylor a green card.

Along with S.2000, Sen. Feinstein introduced Mike Downey's column into the Congressional record. The text of S.2000 is available at http://shusterman.com/s2000.html

Amnesty and Targeted Legalization Legislation
By Maurice Belanger
Senior Policy Associate
National Immigration Forum

In February, the AFL-CIO executive council unanimously approved a resolution calling for, among other things, the legalization of undocumented workers in the U.S. The call for a new amnesty reflects the labor movement's understanding that, by virtue of their status, undocumented workers are vulnerable to unscrupulous employers and more difficult to organize. The AFL-CIO came to understand that legalization of undocumented workers will help all workers.

The Federation's dramatic announcement has created excitement in immigrant communities throughout the U.S. Last month, 20,000 people turned out for an AFL-CIO-sponsored town meeting in Los Angeles, calling for an unconditional amnesty. This and other demonstrations around the country have been widely reported in the press, particularly the Spanish-language press, raising the expectations of immigrants for whom the prospect of a green card will put an end to years of underground existence.

Many undocumented immigrants and their advocates believe that an amnesty is just around the corner. Despite the sea change in organized labor's official stance on immigration, there has been no sea change in Congress. To many in Congress, calls for a general amnesty sound too much like calls for rewarding some for violating immigration laws that Congress only recently spent considerable energy toughening. Until a general amnesty has broader support among their constituents outside of immigrant communities, few, if any, members of Congress will support a proposal for an unconditional amnesty. None has been introduced thus far. Working with these realities, advocates in Washington have attempted to assess the chances of various proposals to make our immigration laws more generous. That necessitates a narrower focus.

The proposals with the best chance of success this year are what is commonly known as the Central American parity legislation and legislation to update the Registry cutoff date. The restoration of Section 245(I) of the Immigration Act, which would allow those qualifying for immigrant visas to obtain their visas in the U.S. without being forced to leave and being barred from reentry, also has decent prospects this year. Advocates are also calling for the reduction in family-based immigration backlogs. The good news is that calls for a general amnesty and for more targeted legalization programs are not incompatible activities. The press coverage of labor's new call for amnesty has drawn attention to the plight of the undocumented. Over time, this could build support in the general public for proposals that may, in the future, be introduced in Congress. The attention to immigrants--undocumented and legal residents--and their contribution to our economy helps lay the groundwork for more generous policies. The advance work being done now may well bear fruit in a new Congress. Regardless of which party controls the House after the upcoming elections, this is Lamar Smith's last year as Chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee; he is at the end of term limits for Committee Chairs set by majority Republican party agreement.

Quite possibly, the composition of a new Congress will be more pro-immigrant. Some fear that legislation to move up the registry cutoff date will kill prospects for a broader legalization program. (Legislation introduced in Congress and supported by the White House would, if passed, allow undocumented immigrants to apply for permanent residence if they have resided in the U.S. since January 1, 1986.) In reality, working with Congress always involves compromises, as Congress responds to a range of constituencies with an eye to the prospects for re-election. Advocates will ask for what is achievable in a given year, and then go back the next year and ask for what can be achieved in the new year.

An all-or-nothing approach is likely to be frustrating in the short-term, and may require several years of sustained campaigning before anything is accomplished. Both goals can and should be pursued simultaneously as appropriate. Getting a broad new legalization program through Congress is a project that may take several years to bear fruit. In the meantime, advocates should also pursue opportunities that will ultimately result in green cards for hundreds of thousands of immigrants, and security for their families.

Immigration Update from Carl Shusterman

On December 15, 2000, Congress passed and sent to the President a number of immigration amendments. We have posted a list of these amendments at
http://shusterman.com/budget00.html
and a draft summary prepared by the American Immigration Lawyers Association at
http://shusterman.com/life00.html

Although the changes fell far short of what immigration advocates had sought, some of the changes were significant: "V" visa for certain spouses and children of permanent residents; expanded "K" visa to include not only fiancées, but spouses of U.S. citizens; relief for late amnesty filers and their families, and a four-month extension of section 245(i).

Because the extension of section 245(i) expires next April 30, this amendment is the most time-sensitive of all the changes to the law. We have prepared a detailed "Section 245(i) FAQ" at
http://shusterman.com/245i-faq.html which answers most of the commonly-asked questions concerning the reauthorization of section 245(i).

In general, persons who have labor certifications and/or visa petitions filed on their behalf by April 30, 2001 will be able to adjust their status to permanent residence despite
(1) entering the U.S. without inspection;
(2) accepting employment without authorization; and
(3) failing to maintain valid nonimmigrant status.

Of course, qualifying under section 245(i) does not immunize a person from deportation, or waive the grounds of admissibility. Still, the extension of this provision has the potential to help hundreds of thousands of persons to become permanent residents. We have also recorded an audio about the impact of the extension of section 245(i) at http://shusterman.com/audio/245i.ram

Finally, together with About.com, we will conduct a free online chat regarding section 245(i) this coming Friday, December 22 at 6pm (Pacific Time), 9pm (Eastern Time). Please join us, and bring your questions. In order to benefit from this brief extension, it is necessary to master the complexities of the new law, and then to move quickly!
Carl Shusterman
December 17, 2000

Home | Our Constitution | Our Projects | Business Opportunities | Links | Annual Reports