Last Monday, a federal judge ruled to temporarily block Alabama’s new law singling out illegal immigrants. U.S. District Judge Sharon L. Blackburn stated that she needed more time to assess the law and its constitutionality, especially given the intense opposition to the law voiced by the Obama Administration, immigrant-rights groups and church leaders. The law was due to take effect on Thursday, September 1^st. Needless to say, that didn’t happen.

The law has been deemed the toughest proposed immigration legislation in the United States. Its opponents compare it to old Jim Crow-era laws promoting racial segregation, while its supporters claim the law will help solve the growing problem of immigrants working in Alabama illegally.

Judge Blackburn stated that more time is needed to adequately examine the lawsuits filed by the US Justice Department, as well as other individuals and groups that claim the law is not constitutional and would allow the state to overreach its authority. Blackburn intends to issue a more comprehensive ruling by September 28.

Alabama joins a string of states that have already attempted to pass similar legislation, including Arizona, Utah, Georgia and Indiana. However, Federal Courts have already taken the sting out of many parts of those laws, as numerous federal judges have so far effectively blocked all or parts of the new immigration laws in the above states.

Two particularly thorny parts of the new laws in Alabama require that schools start to verify the citizenship status of students, and also criminalize any action to assist an illegal immigrant. Such actions could include knowingly hiring an illegal immigrant, providing housing for them, giving them a ride in a vehicle and various other activities. This would allow suspected illegal immigrants to be jailed by police after common traffic stops.

On Tuesday, September 06, 2011 Judge Blackburn decided to separate the cases back into three separate trials (after she originally combined the cases into one grouping for a hearing held two weeks ago). Attorneys involved with the case are hopeful that this is a sign that there will be a ruling before the end of the month.

A few weeks ago the Obama Administration made an announcement that commenced a new round of vicious immigration debate in the United States. The administration stated that its deportation efforts will now focus on illegal immigrants that have criminal records and/or pose a threat to US national security. For those placed on the low-priority list, such as individuals with no criminal record, college students brought into the US as small children and military veterans or the spouses of active-duty military personnel, the rules also outline pathways to stay in the U.S. and potentially apply for a US work permit.

The Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security plan to review all deportation cases currently in removal proceedings, as well as any new cases that arise. The cases will be reviewed to determine if the individuals in danger of being deported meet the criteria detailed in a June 17 inter-agency memo.

This memo, from the director of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division, instructed all staff members to use 19 factors when exercising the power of “prosecutorial discretion”. This is the discretion granted to an ICE attorney when determining how to proceed with an immigration case. The 19 factors include language used in the DREAM Act. However, the recent announcement by the Obama Administration goes several steps further than the initial memo. It has delineated a process for flagging and exempting some illegal immigrants from deportation proceedings.

With more than 300,000 cases in the system, the task of reviewing all cases will be handed to a team of attorneys and officials.

Pro-immigration activists immediately celebrated the news. Opponents of the new rules have branded the plan a large-scale amnesty program for illegal immigrants.

The rocky terrain of international prenuptial agreements is constantly changing.

The Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Matrimonial Property Regimes of 1978 drafted provisions which addressed the problems of international prenuptial agreements. The provisions designated which country’s laws would govern the validity and enforcement of the international prenuptial agreement. The Hague Convention was signed and implemented by five countries: Austria, France, Luxembourg, Netherlands, and Portugal.

In a similar fashion, Australia recently passed the Family Law Act in 1975. The Act states that a prenuptial agreement will be valid in Australia if and only if the agreement meets the Australian validity requirements (e.g. must be signed by all parties).  The United Kingdom recently experienced a rather significant policy change in regards to international prenuptial agreements. The United Kingdom Supreme Court recognized the validity of an international prenuptial agreement. In Radmacher v. Granatino, the Supreme Court upheld a prenuptial agreement between a German heiress, Katrin Radmacher and her French ex-husband, Nicolas Granatino.

Couples who are interested in signing prenuptial agreements should seek a vigilant attorney whom is up to date with recent changes to prenuptial agreement laws. As Thailand prenuptial agreement attorneys, we have experience assisting clients to aim for the best possible outcome with their international agreement.

On July 9th, the US Department of State released a statement reporting that the United Kingdom had joined the United States in imposing visa restrictions on citizens from Iran who have been implicated in human rights abuse cases.

Canada also released a statement that it would support these measures. The visa restrictions are mostly intended for Iranian officials, including military and law enforcement officers, government ministers, prison officials and judiciary officials tied to human rights abuses related to political repression in Iran.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pursued this action under the United States’ Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which grants authority to the US Secretary of State to impose restrictions on entry to the US for aliens believed to be a threat. Secretary Clinton has determined that a legal basis exists to call for visa refusal for some Iranian applicants.

Any Iranian individual deemed to have had a role in the continuing repression of human rights defenders, lawyers, students, women’s rights leaders, civil society representatives, artists, ethnic minorities and religious minorities will face US visa restrictions if he or she submits a  US visa application.

In our experience as US visa lawyers in Thailand , the most common basis for exclusions in Thailand are health grounds and prostitution offenses. Under certain circumstances, these exclusions may be waived by the USCIS and US Embassy.  However qualified attorney help is advised.

First posted on June 12, 2009: Previous Post regarding Uniting American Families Act

A kind reader has brought a recent update from USCIS on this matter to our attention. Although no changes have occurred in Thailand law regarding the legally recognized gender status of transgendered individuals, we have become aware that the USCIS has provided material on its website demonstrating that some immigration cases involving a post-operative transsexual, in certain situations, may be approved.

It appears that three states in the USA (Maryland, North Carolina and New Jersey) recognize transsexual marriages as valid marriages, granted that one person has undergone sexual re-assignment surgery and has taken the legal steps necessary to successfully change status from male to female or vice versa, and that the marriage then meets the legal requirements of that state as a heterosexual marriage.

More information can be viewed on the USCIS website:

Petition for a Spouse (key information is in Section J)

In re Jose Mauricio LOVO-Lara, Beneficiary of a visa petition (Interim Decision #3512)

Interoffice Memorandum (re: Adjudication of Petitions and Applications filed by or on behalf of Transsexual Individuals)

We do see this as positive news and hope that this type of policy interpretation broadens to include the partners of American expats currently living abroad, as well as other LGBT individuals that still face legal hurdles when considering marriage to an American citizen. However, as the law still currently stands in Thailand, male to female transsexuals or female to male transsexuals can not legally change their name or status on Thai identification documents, including Thai passports. Also, same sex marriage is still not provided for under Thailand law, despite a growing contingent of activist groups campaigning for gay and lesbian rights in Thailand.

In regards to the K1 visa process, unfortunately this news from  the USCIS does not signify much of a change within Thailand, as a marriage to a post-operative transsexual is still not recognized as a legal marriage due to the individual’s inability to change his or her legal gender status within Thailand.

As always, we hope that more inclusive change is not too far beyond the current horizon.

Americans recently celebrated the Memorial Day weekend, an occasion to honor those that have served in the American Armed Forces.

But what about the thousands of members of the US Armed Forces that happen to lack US citizenship? Regrettably, not all non citizen relatives of US military can enter and reside in the USA with their families. While some immigrants that serve in the American military can quicken the process to be granted legal permanent residence through their military service, in many situations their family members can not. In some cases, the spouses of active duty members have even been deported or face deportation.

In 2009, the US Military initiated a program where highly skilled foreign workers, employed in the US on a temporary basis such as through an H visa program, could be recruited into the US Army. The program was initially intended to recruit qualified foreign-born healthcare professionals into the army. This program, which allows foreign workers who have been in the USA for at least two years to enter the US Armed Forces, also provides a much quicker route to applying for a green card. They are allowed to apply for citizenship directly, and can bypass the lengthy process of receiving permanent resident status.

Additionally, the US Military provides other avenues for current service members to apply for legal citizenship under the Immigration and Nationality Act. This act includes special provisions for military service members, including: 

• Peace Time Military Service
• Service During Hostilities
• Posthumous Citizenship

The USCIS also provides information on another legal citizenship avenue available to the children of American soldiers based in Thailand, Vietnam, Korea, Laos or Cambodia during the years of January 1, 1951 and October 21, 1982.

US Senators, in an effort to timely honor members of US military families tangled up in the labyrinthine US immigration system, introduced the Military Families Act the week prior to the holiday kick-off.

The Military Families Act would allow for the spouses, parents and children of active military servicemen and women to apply for green cards if they meet eligibility requirements.

According to an article in the New York Times, Department of Homeland Security officials have stated that thousands of US military members have a spouse or close relative that is an illegal immigrant but when applying for legal status for their family members tend to hit a legal roadblock. This is because in 1996 Congress made extensive changes to US immigration laws, including a clause that requires an illegal immigrant to remain outside of the United States for a period of ten years if they are found to have violated or overstayed their visa. In 2009, the Immigration Policy Center released a report noting that as of June 30, 2009 there were at least 114,601 immigrants serving in the armed forces.

These statistics add yet another piece to the debate raging around the need for comprehensive immigration reform in the US.

The US Supreme Court on Saturday issued a ruling to uphold The Legal Arizona Workers Act, a controversial law allowing the revocation of company licenses if a company is found to have knowingly hired an illegal immigrant. Also encompassed by this ruling is the requirement for Arizona employers to use the online E-Verify system to check if a worker has legal status in the United States prior to hiring him or her.

Bad for Mexicans, good for Thais?

One  interest group that is seldom heard from are the legal migrants to the USA who receive indirect discrimination as a result of the massive illegal migration from Mexicans and other nationalities that commonly cross over at the USA’s southern border. As long as illegal migrants are basically permitted to work and reside in the USA through lax federal law enforcement, other immigrants from countries such as Thailand will feel a discriminatory effect. Illegal immigration can take jobs away from not only US citizens but also from immigrants working in the USA legally. For example, if a farm can hire illegal immigrants (again, most commonly fro m Mexico), why would the farm go through the legal method of petitioning the USCIS for legal migrants.

As the Obama Administration has previously stated that this particular law should be struck down, this Supreme Court decision serves as a significant rebuff to civil rights groups, labor unions, businesses and the administration itself. The Supreme Court’s five appointees from the Republican Party pushed this into a majority decision, with a 5 – 3 ruling.

The ruling raised the hopes of supporters of laws allowing states to increasingly crackdown on illegal immigration, as the decision may be a sign that the Supreme Court could potentially issue a positive ruling for a separate, highly controversial Arizona immigration law (SB 1070) involving the role of police in searching and arresting illegal immigrants. These supporters also predict that this ruling could pave the way for other states to pass similar immigration laws, and that require employers to participate in the E-Verify system. The state has been in the appeals process for an earlier ruling that served to block some aspects of SB 1070 from being enforced.

Yet other legal experts warned not to jump the gun too quickly, as this ruling does not necessarily mean that the high court will approve the appeal or allow for other states to create and enforce similar laws.

Regardless, this ruling can be seen as a sign that other states will likely continue to propose new employment-related immigration laws, although it does not necessarily signify the dawn of an era where laws like Arizona’s SB 1070 will be instituted by other states in America. As stated in an article by Immigration Impact, the strict enforcement of the E-verify system alone will not be enough of a solution to America’s immigration problems, unless a legal pathway is also created for immigrant workers to eventually attain legal work authorization.

This ruling has been the subject of protests from Hispanic communities in Arizona, as the largest pool of illegal workers in the United States still continue to come from Mexico. Employees from various industries will be affected by the decision, including the restaurant and food business in Arizona. If Mexican workers such as chefs, dishwashers, etc. will come under more scrutiny due to the E-verify system, could this court decision provide a new way for skilled Thai workers to come to the USA on such programs as the H visa programs?

A new Immigration bill being enforced in Utah as of Tuesday grants police officers the right to request proof of citizenship of anyone they arrest. There is already a hearing concerning the new law scheduled on Tuesday afternoon, where the presiding judge may decide if the law should be enforced or not.

House Bill 497, as the law is now referred to, requires individuals to prove their citizenship if they are arrested for crimes such as murder or drug-related offenses. However, the police may also have the discretion to ask for proof of citizenship if an individual is involved in traffic infractions and smaller offenses.

Statements have been made about the similarities between Bill 497 and the Arizona Immigration law that has caused rigorous debate as it proceeded through the courts.

If the law in Utah is enforced, officials from the American Civil Liberties Union and National Immigration Law Center state that it could pave the way for racial profiling and the unlawful arrest and detention of U.S. citizens. These two groups filed a lawsuit last week to challenge the constitutionality of the law.

Law enforcement officials, on the other hand, do not expect big changes to occur due to the implementation of this law. Due to a law passed in Utah in 2008, the citizenship status of individuals arrested for drunk driving or a felony is already checked. The new law pushes the limits of the former law by allowing police offers to arrest people for minor offenses if they can not provide proof of citizenship.

This aspect of the new law has caused fear in the Hispanic community, and the police department is receiving updates from rape crises centers and shelters that victims refrain from alerting the police due to deportation fears.

Two other immigration laws were also effected on Tuesday. The first would allow an individual to sponsor an immigrant to come to the USA if they can accept financial liability for that person, including any medical costs, transportation and housing costs.

The other law would provide permission for employers in Utah to hire temporary workers from a Mexican state. Negotiation of this agreement between the two states is still pending.

Lastly, yet another immigration law in Utah that will not be effected until 2013 will allow illegal immigrants to remain in the state.

These four measures have been deemed the Utah Compact, with backing from the Utah business community and local religious leaders as a method to balance economic realities in the state with enforcement provisions. Critics of the Compact state that it could infringe on Amnesty laws, particularly in reference to the guest worker program in the USA.

The United States has decided to suspend all visa operations from Pakistan. This announcement comes one day after Osama Bin Laden, head of international terrorist group Al Qaeda, was killed by US operatives in Pakistan.

The US Embassies in Islamabad and Karachi will remain open for emergency American citizen services and other types of business. The announcement came on the heels of another US statement that it was “inconceivable” that Osama Bin Laden did not have a support system in place inside Pakistan, as the former Al Qaeda leader was able to successfully hide out in the country for a long period of time.

On May 3^rd, REUTERS reported that the US-VISIT system had a recorded backlog of at least 1.6 million cases where visitors potentially overstayed the time limit issued for their US visa.

The system has been scrutinized by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, which found that several of the men responsible for hijacking the planes involved in the September 11 attacks had overstayed their US visas. Also, the Office found that at least 36 of the 400 people convicted on terrorism-related charges since 2001 had remained in the United States after their visas expired. This indicates that an apparent security issue has not been completely resolved since the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2011.

It is a policy of the US-VISIT program to put a lower priority on records involving individuals that overstay their visas by 90 days or less, or for records involving individuals that decidedly do not constitute a threat to US national security or public safety. These types of cases do not result in an automatic alert being issued.

The report comes a day before Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is scheduled to testify on US border security. The agency has reportedly stated that it gives priority to locating and deporting illegal immigrants who are convicted criminals, pose serious threats to public safety or are connected in some manner to national security and criminal acts.