Responding to a petition on Facebook, begging to join the military, the Pentagon has reopened a program that allows legal immigrants, with specific language or medical skills, to enlist.  

The program was in place for a little over a year in 2009, but was suspended in January 2010, after a shooting incident at Fort Hood, Tex. The program filled quickly which inspired eager applicants to turn to Facebook, urging the army to reinitiate it.

The program, known as Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest, or MAVNI, allows legal immigrants in the US on temporary visas to enlist in the Army for a period of two or more years.

The response has been, apparently, overwhelming and has attracted an unusually educated and skilled coterie of immigrants in to the armed forces. Most importantly for some, it permits applicants to naturalize as an American citizen at the end of basic training, which many choose to do.

 A spokeswoman for the Pentagon said that the program was intended to fill the “most critical readiness needs.” During this round of recruiting, the army is seeking dentists, surgeons and mental health professionals to help with the severe emotional strains on soldiers who have seen combat action during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Most recruits who enter the program are likely to be sent to combat zones.

In general, those who are not citizens must possess a “Green-Card” or permanent resident visa to be eligible.

Following the utterly abysmal showing in the recent Presidential elections and their very poor showing among Latinos, it should certainly come as no surprise that the Republican Party is re-evaluating their position on immigration reform. Seen as an overwhelming rejection of the party that has been dubbed ‘a bunch of old white guys’ they moved quickly, the day after the election, promising immigration reform, and using a word that is anathema to most Republicans, “comprehensive.” We, at Teplen Law Group applaud the efforts of elected officials, to listen to the voices of the electorate.

Speaker of the House, John Boehner, speaking to ABC News, seeking to clarify their new-found positions, stated that he was ready for a “comprehensive approach” and expressed his confidence that congress and President Obama, could find “common ground to take care of this issue once and for all.”

Mr. Boehner, received support from the Attorney General of Utah, Mark Shurtleff, who is also a conservative Republican. He is part of an education initiative aimed at encouraging other Republicans that “they need to reject the run-‘em out, deport-‘em, enforcement only approach,” that has dominated the Republican Party, thus far.

The whisperings of immigration reform in the Republican Party are thought to be a direct result of the overwhelming landslide of support for President Obama, among the Latino electorate, a stunning 77%.  Mitt Romney, the Republican challenger garnered only 27%.

Mr. Romney never fully recovered after making public his views on “self-deportation” as a solution to the estimated 12 million immigrants in the US illegally. It was also probably no co-incidence that President Obama’s administration decided to adopt a policy of deferred action at around the same time. The President’s initiative is thought to offer relief for as many as 1.2 Million young immigrants, who were brought to the US as minors. The measure became instantly popular among Latinos who chose to overlook the 1.4 million immigrants deported, during the course of his first term. 

However, it is unlikely that any new immigration reform would occur without dissent and there are already rumblings of disagreement. Many, including Sean Hannity, the right-leaning, political commentator, said that although his views on immigration reform had “evolved,” he would like to see the borders secured before any there was a concrete offer of a path to citizenship.

In the interim, Deferred Action is still on the table as a means for young immigrants to avoid deportation, obtain a work permit and a US driver’s license. In lieu of any new proposals, this will have to suffice for now. Anyone who believes they may be eligible for the DACA initiative is encouraged to continue to apply.

To little fanfare, the Obama administration has introduced a policy that may help the many hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, who would otherwise be subject to the 10 year bar, if they tried to obtain a valid visa outside of the US.

Anyone, who has had an unlawful presence in the US for more than 180 days, is subject to the 10 year bar, when applying for permanent resident status.  It is always triggered when individuals leave the US, for consular processing in their country of citizenship.  In addition, anyone who entered the country illegally, without inspection, is compelled to return home to obtain a lawful visa and to re-enter the US legally.

Most recently, the United States Customs and Immigration Service (USCIS) has stated that the 10 year bar will be waived if the US citizen spouse or parent can prove that there will be an extreme hardship if the family is separated for any prolonged period.  It must be stated that demonstrating an ‘extreme hardship ‘ is a complicated and involved process and applicants are advised to consult with an experienced attorney with knowledge of this matter.

Under the program, which is being called a “Stateside Waiver”, immediate relatives of a US citizen are permitted to apply for an unlawful presence waiver of the 10-year bar, while still in the US, which eliminates the fear and risk of being denied a waiver, while outside of the US. This also reduces the possibility that the individual will be denied re-entry to the US. Immediate relatives are a spouse, parents of a US citizen at least 21 years of age, parents of a US citizen and unmarried children under the age of 21 years.

Under current USCIS guidelines, applicants are only permitted to apply for the waiver to the 10–year, from abroad and only after departing the US.

The ‘Stateside Waiver’ program is expected to be in place before the end of 2012.

Presidential hopeful, Mitt Romney, appears virulently anti-immigration and hence, there is no guarantee that this waiver will remain in place, if he is elected president. Therefore, anyone who believes they may be eligible for the program is advised to consult with an attorney, before any new immigration mandates issued under the Obama administration, are nullified or changed.

Following the trend, set by certain US states to recognize gay marriage, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that Immigration & Custom Enforcement (ICE) will take into account a same-sex US citizen partner, before proceeding with removal proceedings.

The new guidelines are in keeping with the 2011 decision by DHS to maintain a focus on immigrants with criminal histories and repeat offenders. ICE considers those with no criminal history, and who do not pose a threat to national security, to be a low priority for deportation and removal. However, it should be stressed that this is not permanent legal status, but instead offers a degree of protection against a forced separation, in the face of immigration inequality. Similar to the President’s new DACA initiative, it would seek a form of prosecutorial discretion, in order to defer or stay an order of deportation.

In light of recent remarks by President Obama and the Democratic Party, in support of same-sex marriage, there have been renewed calls to allow the 36,000 Americans in same sex relationships, the opportunity to sponsor their spouses for permanent residence, in the same manner that opposite sex couples can. This would however, require the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be overturned and DOMA currently, only recognizes a legal union between two people of the opposite sex.

The Obama administration has called the law unconstitutional and said it would no longer defend it in court.

It was reported last week that Republican Governor Phil. Bryant of Mississippi, is joining the federal suit against the Obama administration and his proposed DACA initiative. He called the initiative unconstitutional and claimed that individual states have a responsibility “protect our borders while federal inaction continues to ignore the problem.”

Thankfully some states in the US are taking a more informed and educated response to the President’s version of the DREAM Act (DACA) instead of the customary knee-jerk reaction that any talk of immigration relief, generally produces. With that in mind, Teplen Law Group applauds the move by the State of Maryland, to allow undocumented immigrants to pay in-state tuition fees.

It has always been generally accepted premise that well-educated students earn more, pay more in taxes and are less likely to rely on government assistance.

Therefore, the Maryland DREAM Act permits illegal immigrants, graduating from in-state high schools (in addition to other criteria) the opportunity to pay in-state tuition at Maryland state community colleges and public universities. 

In a new study from the Maryland Institute for Policy Analysis and Research at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, titled Private and Government Fiscal Costs and Benefits of the Maryland Dream Act; it states that the Maryland version of the DREAM Act would be an economic windfall.   It projects that its own DREAM Act would generate approximately $66 million to the Maryland State economy.

The report also estimates, albeit conservatively, that approximately $24.6 million in fiscal benefits would be generated through higher income tax revenues, increased sales taxes and increases in property taxes, as recipients earn higher incomes. It also states that this demographic would also be less likely to commit crimes, be incarcerated, and receive income support or other government health-care subsidies, all of which could potentially result in reduced public spending.

The statistics for the nation as a whole are even more compelling. It is estimated that passage of the DREAM Act would add more than $329 billion to the economy by 2030, generate 1.4 million new jobs and generate $10 billion in revenue for the federal government.

Although relatively few Maryland high-school graduates will likely take advantage of the opportunity to go onto higher education, the law is nevertheless a common-sense solution, especially at a time when many states are struggling to shore up their budgets and find extra revenue.  Not only is it fair and compassionate, it makes sound economic sense and benefits all its residents; which Governors like Phil Bryant and likely Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona, should probably be reminded of, from time to time.