Visas Good Bad

8/3/2019 Visas Good Bad

1/50

ADI 2010 1Peterson/Perry Visas Aff/Neg

Table of Contents

Table of Contents..........................................................................................1

**Advantage Ev**..........................................................................................3Protectionism Tanks Economy.....................................................................4

Illegal Employment Results in Atrocities......................................................5

Hard Power Bad...........................................................................................6

Families Have Right to Unite ........................................................................ 7

**Temp Workers Aff Ev** .............................................................................. 8

H-2A Solve Displacement.............................................................................9

H-1Bs Attracts Intelligence..........................................................................10

High Skilled Visas Solve Technology/Jobs...................................................11

A2: H-1B Job Displacement.........................................................................12

Temp Visas Solve.........................................................................................13

Temp Visas Solve........................................................................................14

Temp Visas Solve.........................................................................................15

***Temp Workers Neg*** ............................................................................. 16

Temp Visas Cause Abuse.............................................................................17

Temp Visas Fail - Athletes...........................................................................18

Temp Visas Cause Unemployment..............................................................19

**Family Visas Aff** .................................................................................... 20

Immigration Reform Benefits GL Communities..........................................21

A2: K-1 Visa Waiting Times.........................................................................22

A2: V-Visa Wait Times................................................................................23

CSPA Protects Children..............................................................................24

A2: Immigration Flood...............................................................................25

Types of Family Visas are Unlimited/Limited.............................................26

Remittance Hurts US Econ .........................................................................27

**Family Visas Neg** ................................................................................... 28

K-3 Visas Fail..............................................................................................29

K-3 Visas Trade-Off....................................................................................30

Family Visas Fail Wait Time.....................................................................31

Visas Fail Unfair Laws.............................................................................32


2/50


Visas Impede on Traditions........................................................................33

Family Visas Cause Illegal Immigration.....................................................34

**T-Visas Aff/Neg** ..................................................................................... 35

Uncapping T-Visas Solves...........................................................................36

T-Visas Fail Paranoia ..............................................................................37

**Work Immigrant Visas Good** ................................................................ 38

Solves Wages..............................................................................................39

Solves Wages Extension.............................................................................40

Solves Innovation........................................................................................41

Solves Economy..........................................................................................42

**Work Immigrant Visas Bad** .................................................................. 43

Backlog kills solvency.................................................................................44

No Economic Solvency................................................................................45

Decreases Wages........................................................................................46

**Misc** ...................................................................................................... 47

Health Care Solves Econ.............................................................................48

Health Care Solves Econ Ext.......................................................................49

Backlog Causes Illegal Immigration...........................................................50


3/50


**Advantage Ev**


4/50


Protectionism Tanks Economy

Protectionism bad, causes closed economy and stagnation

Friedman 9

(internationally renowned author, reporter, and columnistthe recipient of three Pulitzer Prizes and the author of five bestselling books February

11, 2009 OP-ED COLUMNIST The Open-Door Bailout By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Bangalore, India) HRL

If you do this, it will be one of the best things for India and one of the worst for Americans, [because] Indians will be forced to innovate athome, said Subhash B. Dhar, a member of the executive council that runs Infosys, the well-known Indian technology company that sends Indian

workers to the U.S. to support a wide range of firms. We protected our jobs for many years and look where it got us. Do you know thatfor an Indian company, it is still easier to do business with a company in the U.S. than it is to do businesstoday with another Indian state? Each Indian state tries to protect its little economy with its own rules.America should not be trying to copy that. Your attitude, said Dhar, should be whoever can make uscompetitive and dominant, lets bring them in. If there is one thing we know for absolute certain, itsthis: Protectionism did not cause the Great Depression, but it sure helped to make it Great. From 1929 to 1934,world trade plunged by more than 60 percent and we were all worse off.


5/50


Illegal Employment Results in Atrocities

Illegal employment leads to atrocities

Griffith 9(Kati L. Griffith CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ILR SCHOOL, Ithaca, New YorkAssistant Professor of Employment and Labor Law.

UNITED STATES: U.S. MIGRANT WORKER LAW: THE INTERSTICES OF IMMIGRATION LAW AND LABOR ANDEMPLOYMENT LAWComparative Labor Law & Policy JournalComparative Labor Law & Policy Journal Fall, 2009 31 Comp. Lab. L. & Pol'y J. 125) HRL

The work visa program for temporary foreign workers in the United States is "not only the longest-running, but also the largest such program in

the world."n1

Close to one million foreign workers receive work visas each year for both skilled and unskilled temporary jobs in the United

States.n2

Nevertheless, the number of foreign workers laboring in the United states that do not have the legal documentation necessary to work in

the United States ("undocumented migrant workers") dwarfs the number of temporary foreign workers that receive visas to work in the United

States ("documented migrant workers"). As of 2008, there were an estimated 8.3 million, mostly low-wage and low-skilled, undocumented migrant workers in the U.S. labor force. n3 Some estimates suggest that the numberof undocumented migrant workers in the United States may be even higher. n4 Thus, when discussing"migrant worker law," the laws that affect undocumented migrant workers deserve special attention in the

U.S. context. [*126] Migrant workers, both documented and undocumented, are currently the subject of a significant amount of debate inthe United State. Some of the concern centers on the treatment of low-wage migrant workers in low-skill occupations. A host ofnew studiesand reports graphically depict how low-wage migrant workers too often work in unsafe conditions andsuffer severe mistreatment from their employers.n5For example, a New York Times article revealed a host ofalleged labor abuses that came to light in the aftermath of a large-scale immigration raid at a meatpacking company in May 2008. Theimmigration raid resulted in the arrest of hundreds of workers suspected of using fraudulent documents to obtain employment. n6A searchwarrant issued before the immigration raid detailed one occasion when "a floor supervisor had blindfolded an immigrant[worker] with duct tape " and "then took one of the meat hooks and hit the [worker ] with it." n7 While theincident reportedly did not result in "serious injuries" it represented the tip of the iceberg of alleged labor andemployment law violations.n8 Immigration agents also identified child workers, "some as young as 13." n9These children reported that they were working "shifts of twelve hours or more wielding razor-edgedknives and saws to slice freshly killed beef."n10 Other alleged labor and employment violations includedcomplaints from migrant meatpackers of discrimination, sexual harassment , and wage and hour

violations.n11
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n1http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n2http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n2http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n2http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n3http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n3http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n4http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n4http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n5http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n5http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n5http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n6http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n6http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n7http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n7http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n8http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n8http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n8http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n9http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n9http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n10http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n10http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n10http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n11http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n11http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n2http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n3http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n4http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n5http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n6http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n7http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n8http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n9http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n10http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n11http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340707187&returnToKey=20_T9832675516&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.574888.7993847574#n1


6/50


Hard Power Bad

Increasing military leadership is dangerous as a basis for policy. Not key to USglobal leadership.Conry, 97 (Barbara, Foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-267.html) JS

"Global leadership" has gained increasing prominence as a guiding principle for American foreign policy. Yet the concept

itself remains largely unexamined. Although "leadership" sounds benign, today's proponents of global leadership envision arole for the United States that resembles that of a global hegemon--with the risks and costs hegemony entails. Globalpolitical and military leadership is inadequate, even dangerous, as a basis forpolicy. The vagueness of "leadership" allows policymakers to rationalize dramatically different initiatives and makesdefining policy difficult. Taken to an extreme, global leadership implies U.S. interest in andresponsibility for virtually anything, anywhere. Global leadership also entailsimmense costs and risks. Much of the $265 billion defense budget is spent tosupport U.S. aspirations to lead the world, not to defend the United States.There are also human costs. Moreover, it is an extremely risky policy that forces U.S. involvement in numerous situations

unrelated to American national security. There are no concrete benefits that justify the costsand risks of U.S. global leadership. Advocates' claims that leadership enables Washington to persuadeU.S. allies to assume costs the United States would otherwise bear alone and that failure on the part of the United States tolead would cause global chaos do not hold up under scrutiny. There are several alternatives to global leadership, including

greater reliance on regional security organizations and the creation of spheres of influence or regional balance-of-power arrangements. The United States would then act as a balancer of last resort. Such a strategy wouldpreserve U.S. security without the costs and risks of an unrealistic crusade tolead the world.

Increasing U.S. hard pwer bad. Increases anti-US ideology, destroys counties,decreases US economyMesserli 9 (Joe. Balanced Politics Author. http://www.balancedpolitics.org/world_policeman.htm)JSIt could increase an already growing anti-American sentiment around the world.We could make many wrong decisions (e.g. when we armed & financed Saddam Hussein). U.S. soldiers would be put in harm's way.

Civilians would be killed on many of the missions. Much of a country could be destroyed in aliberation attempt. The financial cost of being a world policeman is extremely

high. People from other countries have different cultures & values; thus, we must respect the rights of those citizens to determinetheir own government.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-267.htmlhttp://www.balancedpolitics.org/world_policeman.htmhttp://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-267.htmlhttp://www.balancedpolitics.org/world_policeman.htm


7/50

ADI 2010 7 Peterson/Perry Visas Aff/Neg

Families Have Right to Unite

Families have the right to unity, covered by international law.Jastram 2003(Katie Jastram, University of California, Berkeley, Family Unity: The New Geography of Family Life May 2003

) KC

A family's right to live together is protected by international human rights and humanitarian law. There isuniversal consensus that, as the fundamental unit of society, the family is entitled to respect, protection, assistance, andsupport. A right to family unity is inherent in recognizing the family as a group unit. The right to marryand found a family also includes the right to maintain a family life together.The right to a shared family life draws additional support from the prohibition against arbitrary interference withthe family. Finally, states have recognized that children have a right to live with their parents. Both the father andthe mother, irrespective of their marital status, have common responsibilities as parents and share the right and responsibility to participateequally in the upbringing and development of their children.

Interest of dependents should be strongest reason families stay together.Jastram 2003

(Katie Jastram, University of California, Berkeley, Family Unity: The New Geography of Family Life May 2003) KC

Equally defining will be the efforts of families to reunite through migration, and the ways in which states will choose to respond. The rightson which family unity is based are often qualified with provisions for the state to limit the right undercertain circumstances. It should be noted, however, that the most important, and sometimes only, qualifier is theimperative to act in the best interests of the child. The nature of the family relationship shapes the right tofamily unity, with minor dependent children and their parents having the strongest claim to remaintogether or to be reunited. Maintaining the unity of an intact family poses different issues than reconstituting a separated family.Finally, the immigration status of the various family members has an impact on how the right to family unity should be implemented.

US is founded on immigrant families and their unity.Integrity Legal 2009

(Integrity Legal Law Firm, immigration law firm and blog, The Current State of US Family Immigration October 30, 2009http://integrity-legal.com/legal-blog/tag/us-family-immigration/) KC

The United States of America is a nation founded by Immigrants and the descendants of Immigrants. USFamily Immigration is one of the most important aspects of the American Immigration system as it helpsbind multinational families to the United States of America . In a recent article in the Immigration Impact blog, issuescorrelating to US Family Immigration were discussed at length. Below are some of the ideas conveyed regarding the system of bringing families

together in the USA: The U.S. immigration system has always promoted family unity by awarding themajority of visas to the families of current U.S. residents, which ensures that close family members arenot kept apart. The principle of family unity has long been a central tenet of our immigration laws and hascontributed to the economic and social prosperity of our country and immigrant populations.
http://www.migrationinformation.org/feature/display.cfm?ID=118http://www.migrationinformation.org/feature/display.cfm?ID=118http://www.migrationinformation.org/feature/display.cfm?ID=118http://www.migrationinformation.org/feature/display.cfm?ID=118http://integrity-legal.com/legal-blog/tag/us-family-immigration/http://www.migrationinformation.org/feature/display.cfm?ID=118http://www.migrationinformation.org/feature/display.cfm?ID=118http://integrity-legal.com/legal-blog/tag/us-family-immigration/


8/50


**Temp Workers Aff Ev**


9/50


H-2A Solve Displacement

H-2A visas protect American workers from job displacement

Shaver 9(Jessica Shaver Immigration Lawyer Copyright (c) 2009 Georgetown Immigration Law Journal Georgetown Immigration Law Journal Fall,

2009 24 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 97) HRL

the DOL proposed a rule called " Temporary Agricultural Employment of H-2A Aliens in the U.S.,"which was published in the Federal Register on September 4, 2009.n27In describing the need for new rule making, theDOL noted that "the policy underpinnings of the 2008 Final Rule, e.g. streamlining the H-2A regulatory process to defer many determinations of

program compliance until after an Application has been fully adjudicated, do not provide an adequate level of [*100] protection for either U.S.

or foreign workers."n28

The Department, noting the INA's purpose of protecting U.S. workers even while enabling the importation offoreign workers, "believes that its statutory mandate justifies returning to the previous methodology as it betterensures U.S. workers are not adversely affected."n29 Under the new rule, employers are only to hireforeign workers if "there are demonstrably no available domestic workers for these jobs."n30To ensureAmerican workers are given the first shot at these jobs, the new rule would require, for the first time, thatthese jobs be posted on an electronic job registry. n31 In addition, the new rule would require farmers toonce again submit documentation to prove they tried to hire American workers first.n32After the 2008 rulechange, farmers were only required to attest to this effort, relying heavily on "post-adjudication integrity measures to review selected

documentation from a percentage of employers to compensate for a lack of hands-on review."n33
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340724554&returnToKey=20_T9832675575&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.557213.2099285084#n27http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340724554&returnToKey=20_T9832675575&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.557213.2099285084#n27http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340724554&returnToKey=20_T9832675575&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.557213.2099285084#n28http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340724554&returnToKey=20_T9832675575&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.557213.2099285084#n28http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340724554&returnToKey=20_T9832675575&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.557213.2099285084#n29http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340724554&returnToKey=20_T9832675575&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.557213.2099285084#n29http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340724554&returnToKey=20_T9832675575&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.557213.2099285084#n29http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340724554&returnToKey=20_T9832675575&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.557213.2099285084#n30http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340724554&returnToKey=20_T9832675575&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.557213.2099285084#n30http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340724554&returnToKey=20_T9832675575&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.557213.2099285084#n31http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340724554&returnToKey=20_T9832675575&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.557213.2099285084#n31http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340724554&returnToKey=20_T9832675575&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.557213.2099285084#n32http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340724554&returnToKey=20_T9832675575&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.557213.2099285084#n32http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340724554&returnToKey=20_T9832675575&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.557213.2099285084#n32http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340724554&returnToKey=20_T9832675575&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.557213.2099285084#n27http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340724554&returnToKey=20_T9832675575&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.557213.2099285084#n28http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340724554&returnToKey=20_T9832675575&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.557213.2099285084#n29http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340724554&returnToKey=20_T9832675575&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.557213.2099285084#n30http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340724554&returnToKey=20_T9832675575&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.557213.2099285084#n31http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280340724554&returnToKey=20_T9832675575&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.557213.2099285084#n32


10/50


H-1Bs Attracts Intelligence

An open and flexible economy is best: H-1B visas attract brain power.

Friedman 9

(internationally renowned author, reporter, and columnistthe recipient of three Pulitzer Prizes and the author of five bestselling books February

11, 2009 OP-ED COLUMNIST The Open-Door Bailout By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Bangalore, India) HRL

Leave it to a brainy Indian to come up with the cheapest and surest way to stimulate our economy: immigration.

All you need to do is grant visas to two million Indians, Chinese and Koreans, said Shekhar Gupta, editor of The Indian Express newspaper.We will buy up all the subprime homes. We will work 18 hours a day to pay for them. We will immediately improve your savings rate noIndian bank today has more than 2 percent nonperforming loans because not paying your mortgage is considered shameful here. And we will startnew companies to create our own jobs and jobs for more Americans.While his tongue was slightly in cheek, Gupta and many other Indian

business people I spoke to this week were trying to make a point that sometimes non-Americans can make best: Dear America, pleaseremember how you got to be the wealthiest country in history. It wasnt through protectionism, or state-owned banks or fearing free trade. No, the formula was very simple: build this really flexible, really openeconomy, tolerate creative destruction so dead capital is quickly redeployed to better ideas andcompanies, pour into it the most diverse, smart and energetic immigrants from every corner of the worldand then stir and repeat, stir and repeat, stir and repeat, stir and repeat.

While I think President Obama has been doing his best to keep the worst protectionist impulses in Congress out of his stimulus plan, the U.S.Senate unfortunately voted on Feb. 6 to restrict banks and other financial institutions that receive taxpayerbailout money from hiring high-skilled immigrants on temporary work permits known as H-1B visas.

Bad signal. In an age when attracting the first-round intellectual draft choices from around the world isthe most important competitive advantage a knowledge economy can have, why would we add barriersagainst such brainpower anywhere? Thats called Old Europe. Thats spelled: S-T-U-P-I-D.


11/50


High Skilled Visas Solve Technology/Jobs

Attracting smart people best way to create jobs and further technology

Friedman 9

(internationally renowned author, reporter, and columnistthe recipient of three Pulitzer Prizes and the author of five bestselling books February11, 2009 OP-ED COLUMNIST The Open-Door Bailout By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Bangalore, India) HRL

We live in a technological age where every study shows that the more knowledge you have as a worker and the moreknowledge workers you have as an economy, the faster your incomes will rise. Therefore, the centerpieceof our stimulus, the core driving principle, should be to stimulate everything that makes us smarter and attractsmore smart people to our shores. That is the best way to create good jobs. According to research byVivek Wadhwa, a senior research associate at the Labor and Worklife Program at Harvard Law School, more than half of SiliconValley start-ups were founded by immigrants over the last decade. These immigrant-founded techcompanies employed 450,000 workers and had sales of $52 billion in 2005, said Wadhwa in an essay published thisweek on BusinessWeek.com. He also cited a recent study by William R. Kerr of Harvard Business School and William F. Lincoln oftheUniversity of Michigan that found that in periods when H-1B visa numbers went down, so did patent

applications filed by immigrants [in the U.S.]. And when H-1B visa numbers went up, patent applicationsfollowed suit. We dont want to come out of this crisis with just inflation, a mountain of debt andmore shovel-ready jobs. We want to we have to come out of it with a new Intel, Google,Microsoft and Apple. I would have loved to have seen the stimulus package include a government-funded venture capitalbank to help finance all the start-ups that are clearly not starting up today in the clean-energy space theyre dying like flies because of a lack of liquidity from traditional lending sources. Newsweek had an essay this week that began: Could Silicon Valley

become another Detroit? Well, yes, it could.When the best brains in the world are on sale, you dont shutthem out. You open your doors wider. We need to attack this financial crisis with green cardsnot just greenbacks, and with start-ups not just bailouts. One Detroit is enough.


12/50


A2: H-1B Job Displacement

H-1B do NOT detriment American jobs or wages

Sherk Nguyen 9(Restricting H-1B Visas Is Bad for Business and the Economy Published onMay 13, 2009 byJames SherkandDiem Nguyen - is

Bradley Fellow in Labor Policy in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation and Diem Nguyen is a Research Assistantin the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute forInternational Studies, at The Heritage Foundation. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/05/Restricting-H-1B-Visas-Is-Bad-for-Business-and-the-Economy) HRL

Many believe H-1B workers merely compete with Americans looking for work. They are wrong. TheU.S. workforce is not a "zero-sum game." One hired H-1B worker does not mean an American is out of ajob. In fact, the National Foundation for American Policy found that employers hired four new Americanworkers for each new H-1B employee they hire.

Additionally, hiring H-1B employees does not lower the wages of American workers. Current law requiresthat when employers apply for H-1B visas, they must attest that they will pay the visa recipient the samewage they would pay an American with similar skill sets. Rather than limiting the ability of employers to

hire H-1B workers by adding more rules and restrictions, Congress should ensure the federal governmentexercises appropriate oversight in enforcing current laws.
http://www.heritage.org/About/Staff/S/James-Sherkhttp://www.heritage.org/About/Staff/N/Diem-Nguyenhttp://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/05/Restricting-H-1B-Visas-Is-Bad-for-Business-and-the-Economyhttp://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/05/Restricting-H-1B-Visas-Is-Bad-for-Business-and-the-Economyhttp://www.heritage.org/About/Staff/S/James-Sherkhttp://www.heritage.org/About/Staff/N/Diem-Nguyenhttp://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/05/Restricting-H-1B-Visas-Is-Bad-for-Business-and-the-Economyhttp://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/05/Restricting-H-1B-Visas-Is-Bad-for-Business-and-the-Economy


13/50


Temp Visas Solve

Increasing temporary-workers reduces illegal immigration, jumpstarts the economy, and solves job

shortages.

Griswold 10 (Daniel, Director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies,

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11718) JS

The evidence favoring immigration reform is stark in a way that ought to appeal to Republicans.A robusttemporary-worker program would reduce illegal immigration and add

billions of dollars in productivity to the U.S. economy. Without immigration reform, theproblem of illegal immigration will only grow worse as the U.S. labor market slowly recovers from the recession. Thenumber of illegal immigrants in the United States has dropped to 11 million from its peak in2007, but itwill likely begin to grow again as demand for less-skilled workerspicks up with the economy. The economic and demographic realities that have fueled illegal immigrationare still in place. In normal years, the U.S. economy produces hundreds of thousands ofnew jobs in retail, landscaping, food preparation and service, and home and commercial cleaning, all ofwhichattract immigrants with limited job skills.At the same time, the number of native-

born Americans satisfied with such jobs continues to decline as the population becomesolder and better-educated. The number of adult Americans without a high school diploma is expected to drop by anothertwo to three million over the next decade. Yet our immigration system offers no means for asufficient number of foreign-born workers to enter the country legally and fillthat gap. So they enter illegally. The key to reducing illegal immigration will

be a strong temporary-worker program. This has been the missing ingredient of past efforts.

Increasing temporary-worker visas sharply reduces illegal immigrationGriswold 10 (Daniel, Director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies,http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11718) JS

We know from experience that expanding opportunities for legal immigration can sharplyreduce illegal immigration. In the 1950s, Congress dramatically expanded thenumber of temporary-worker visas through the Bracero Program. The result was a 95percent drop in arrests at the border. IfMexican and Central Americanworkers know they canenter the country legallyto fill jobs, they will be far less likely to enter illegally.

Temporary-Visa programs reduce terrorism and illegal immigration.Griswold 10 (Daniel, Director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies,http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11718) JS

A workable temporary-visa program would allow border agents toconcentrate their efforts on intercepting real criminals and terrorists at the

border. It would also reduce the temptation to hire illegal workers , in turn reducingthe need to raid workplaces and impose national ID cards, employment verification systems, and other burdenson American citizens.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11718http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11718http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11718http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11718http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11718http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11718http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11718http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11718http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11718


14/50


Temp Visas Solve

Low-skilled workers are key to U.S. Economy. Only temporary-worker visas solve.Griswold 7 (Daniel, Director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10659) JS

Skeptics of immigration reform point to the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act as evidence that reform and

legalization cannot work. The 1986 act contained two major provisions: It offered "legal permanent resident" status (i.e., a"green card") to 2.7 million illegal workers who had entered the country before 1982 and to certain agricultural workers, andit significantly ramped up enforcement efforts, including making it illegal for the first time in U.S. history for employers to

knowingly hire illegal workers. Notably missing from IRCA, however, was any provisionto expand the opportunity for low-skilled workers to enter the countrylegally. The pool of illegal workers was drained temporarily by the amnesty,

but it soon began to fill up again as the economic pull of the U.S. labor marketoverwhelmed even the stepped-up enforcement efforts. IRCA failed torecognize the reality that low-skilled workers play an important andlegitimate role in the U.S. economy. Large-scale illegal immigration will endonly when America's immigration system offers a legal alternative. If foreign-

born workers are allowed to enter the country by a safe, orderly, and legalpath, the number choosing to enter illegally will drop sharply. When given the choice

of paying a smuggler $2,000, risking robbery and death in the desert, and living a shadowy existence in the undergroundU.S. economy, unable to leave and return freely to visit home, or entering the United States through a legal port of entrywith legal documents, enjoying the full responsibility and protection of the law, and the freedom to visit home without fearof being denied reentry, the large majority of potential entrants will chose the legal path.

History proves a temporary-worker program solves for illegal immigrationGriswold 7 (Daniel, Director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10659) JS

We know from experience that legal immigration, if allowed, will crowd outillegal immigration. In the 1950s, the Bracero program allowed Mexican workers to enter the countrytemporarily, typically to work on farms in the Southwest. Early in that decade, illegal immigration was widespread becausethe program offered an insufficient number of visas to meet the labor demands of a growing U.S. economy. Instead of

merely redoubling efforts to enforce a flawed law, Congress dramatically increased the numberof visas to accommodate demand. The result: apprehensions of illegal

entrants at the border soon dropped by more than 95 percent. Back then, aswe could expect now, foreign-born workers rationally chose the legal path toentry when it was available. When the Bracero program was abolished in 1964,illegal immigration began an inexorable rise that continues to this day.

At least 400,000 temporary-visas must be increased to sustain the job market.Anything less guarantees illegal immigration will increase.Griswold 7 (Daniel, Director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10659) JS

If the goal is to curb illegal immigration, any temporary worker program must offer a sufficient number of visas to meet the

legitimate demands of a growing U.S. labor market. The fact that 400,000 to 500,000 foreignborn workers join the U.S. labor force each year indicates the general

magnitude by which the demand for exceeds the supply of available, legalworkers. A temporary worker program should offer at least that number ofvisas to allow the revealed demand of American employers to be met legally.Capping the number of visas much below that level will be self-defeating. In May 2006, theSenate approved an amendment offered by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) that would have reduced the annual number oftemporary visas to 200,000. That number would still leave a large number of jobs in the United States without sufficient

legal workers available to fill them. A similar cap this time around will almost certainly guarantee acontinued inflow of illegal workers, defeating one of the central goals ofimmigration reform.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10659http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10659http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10659http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10659http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10659http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10659http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10659http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10659http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10659http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10659http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10659http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10659


15/50


Temp Visas Solve

Increasing visa eligibility does not mean a flood of immigrants will overwhelm theUS. History, economic caps, and circularity migration proveGriswold 7 (Daniel, Director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10659) JS

Fears that the United States will be overwhelmed by a "flood" of immigrantsif the temporary visa numbers are not tightly capped are unfounded. First,legalization does not necessarily mean more immigrants entering the United States. The most likelyconsequence of a temporary worker program, as with expansion of the Bracero programin the 1950s,would be the transformation of an illegal flow into a legal flow.The number of workers entering the country illegally has already beeneffectively "capped" by the demand in the U.S. labor market. If there are not

jobs available, the workers will not come. Second, a workable legalizationprogram could be expected to restore the traditional circularity of Mexicanmigration to the United States, increasing the number of foreign- born

workers who leave the country after a temporary period of work. Many low-skilledworkers enter the U.S. labor market to solve temporary problems back home. They send remittances home to help paymedical bills, upgrade housing, raise capital for a business, or smooth the family's income during an economic downturn.Once such goals are achieved, a large share of workers has chosen in the past to return home. On the basis of thatexperience, we could expect that an increase in the number of workers entering the country after legalization would belargely or wholly offset by an increase in the number leaving. Third, any fears of "chain migration" can be addressed byrestricting the ability of immigrants to sponsor extended family members. One possible compromise would be to restrict oreliminate quotas for parents, adult siblings, and adult children of legal permanent residents in the United States. The abilityto sponsor relatives could be limited to the "nuclear family" of spouses and minor children. The result would be to allownuclear families to remain intact, while at the same time incrementally moving the U.S. immigration system from one that isprimarily family based to one that is employment based.

Chain migration claims are exaggerated.Griswold 7 (Daniel, Director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10659) JS

Fears about chain migration tend to be exaggerated. A Web Memo published

in May 2006 by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation estimated that theoriginal version of the Senate immigration reform bill, S. 2611, wouldincrease U.S. immigration by a whopping 103 million during the next 20

years. But we know from our experience with the 1986 Immigration Reformand Control Act that nothing like a flood of new immigration occurred.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10659http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10659http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10659http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10659http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10659http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10659http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10659http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10659


16/50


***Temp Workers Neg***


17/50


Temp Visas Cause Abuse

Temporary work visas force immigrants to remain in abusive job conditions

Tripathi 9RAGINI TRIPATHI* Copyright (c) 2009 The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Minority Issues The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on

Minority Issues Spring, 2009 11 SCHOLAR 519

Under current law, it is extremely difficult for many employment -based visa-holders to change jobs,because immigration status is frequently conditioned on continued employment by the sponsoringemployer. Even where available, the legal process for switching employers is cumbersome. As a result,many temporary workers in existing visa programs endure extreme exploitation and abuse by theiremployers rather than forfeiting their immigration status. Yet labor scholars well understand the necessity of a genuine"right of exit" from an employment relationship, if individual liberty is to be preserved. This is the promise of the Thirteenth Amendment, which

itself secures a principle far older than the Civil War. Although temporary workers may have the formal option to leaveexploitative and dangerous jobs, the reality is often that one cannot risk the termination of visa status andloss of costly investments in travel, visa fees, and other expenses, when work authorization is notportable. ... Denying portability to temporary workers thus confers on employers a dramatic coercivepower. Preserving a genuine right of exit, by contrast, will be indispensable in allowing future temporaryworkers to exercise their rights to organize, to their certified wages, to a safe workplace, to be free fromunlawful discrimination, and to other legal rights. Id. at 1455-57 (footnotes omitted).
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T9848494528&homeCsi=243718&A=0.8432259789015818&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=92%20Minn.%20L.%20Rev.%201446,at%201455&countryCode=USAhttp://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct=A&risb=21_T9848494528&homeCsi=243718&A=0.8432259789015818&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&citeString=92%20Minn.%20L.%20Rev.%201446,at%201455&countryCode=USA


18/50


Temp Visas Fail - Athletes

Short time limits fail, deters professional athletes careersBragun 8(Magdalena Bragun + Judicial Extern, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Richard Tallman Legal Intern, Federal Aviation

Administration: Office of Regional Counsel Legal Advocate, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project Legal Intern, Polish Ministry ofForeign Affairs, Represents Wells Fargo and Nordstrom etc. Copyright (c) 2008 The Seattle University Law Review Seattle University LawReview Summer, 2008 22 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 715) HRL

Professional athletes are authorized to come to the United States as temporary nonimmigrant workersunder the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1990.n19Specifically, professional hockey players must seekclassification as an "Internationally Recognized Athletes" under the Act, a classification more commonly known as "P-1 status."n20 To obtain P-1 status, a hockey player must establish that he is "internationally recognized" and is coming to the United States,with no intention of abandoning his foreign residence, for the purpose of performing on a team .n21To meetthis standard, a hockey player must obtain a valid contract with a major U.S. sports franchise and provide documentation that he meets two of

seven listed criterion evidencing his level of international acclaim.n22

Generally speaking, any hockey player with an NHLcontract who plays for on a professional level will have no problem meeting the requirements to receive[*720] P-1 status.n23An approved P-1 petition provides an athlete with an initial grant of five years of

valid status and work authorization in the United States.n24

This initial grant can be extended until theathlete has spent a total of ten years in P-1 status.n25 The clock starts running as soon as the athlete entersthe U.S. in P-1 status and applies whether the athlete is playing at a major-league or minor-league level.n26

Simply put, a professional athlete in P-1 status has a maximum of ten years of time in the United States. This ten-year limit poses aproblem because it encompasses playing time at both the minor and major league levels, and manyplayers will spend several years playing for a minor-league team before developing the necessary skillsand experience needed to compete in the NHL.n27It is inevitable that some foreign-born NHL players will want to stay in theUnited States for the duration of their careers and long after. Those wishing to stay in the United States permanently must seek an employment-

based immigrant visa under the INA.n28
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n19http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n19http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n19http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n20http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n20http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n20http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n21http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n21http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n21http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n22http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n22http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n23http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n23http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n23http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n24http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n24http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n24http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n25http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n25http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n25http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n26http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n26http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n27http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n27http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n27http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n28http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n28http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n19http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n20http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n21http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n22http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n23http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n24http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n25http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n26http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n27http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1280339724055&returnToKey=20_T9832576156&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-20.753153.2434470439#n28


19/50


Temp Visas Cause Unemployment

Increasing H-1B visas causes unemployment.Miano 8 (John. Founder of the Programmers Guild. http://www.cis.org/H1bVisaNumbers)

As the annual H-1B quota gets exhausted, industry groups claim that the huge number of H-1B visa applications

demonstrates that more H-1B visas should be available. However, comparing the number of H-1B

visas in their largest represented occupations (computers and engineering) to the number of jobscreated in those occupations presents a different picture of the H-1B visa program. This study examines the relationship

between the number of H-1B visas and job growth. It finds that the number of H-1B visasapproved in these fields greatly exceeds any reasonable number reflected byeconomic demand. Key Findings There is no cause and effect relationship

between H-1B visas and job creation. Adding H-1B visas does not createadditional jobs for U.S. workers. Since 1999, the United States has approved enough H-1B visas forcomputer workers to fill 87 percent of net computer job growth over that period. Since 1999, the UnitedStates has had a net loss of 76,000 engineering jobs. Over the same timeperiod, the United States has approved an average of 16,000 new H-1B visaseach year for engineers.

Increasing H-1B visas do not produce job creationMiano 8 (John JD. J Founder of the Programmers Guild. http://www.cis.org/H1bVisaNumbers)

There have been published claims that H-1B visas create jobs. Both the Wall Street Journal and TheEconomist have asserted on their editorial pages that each H-1B visa creates fiveadditional jobs. If that kind of relationship existed, the H-1B program should becreating around 500,000 to 1,000,000 new jobs a year. This alleged job creationis so large that it would be immediately apparent in the data. It simply is notthere. Statistically, there is no linear correlation whatsoever between H-1B visasand job growth. A graph provides a good illustration. Figure 2 shows the annual growth in employment compared tothe number of jobs H-1B should be creating if the kind of relationship claimed by the Wall Street Journal and The Economist

existed. The trend in the data is the opposite of that claimed.9 Growth in H-1B visashas corresponded with decreases in employment growth. This is not to say the data show H-

1B visas cause job creation to decrease. Rather, it shows that H-1B visas do not produce jobcreation and, most importantly, that H-1B usage is not self-correcting toeconomic demand

Increasing U.S. hard hegemony bad. Increases anti-US ideology, destroys counties,decreases US economyMesserli 9 (Joe. Balanced Politics Author. http://www.balancedpolitics.org/world_policeman.htm)JSIt could increase an already growing anti-American sentiment around the world.We could make many wrong decisions (e.g. when we armed & financed Saddam Hussein). U.S. soldiers would be put in harm's way.

Civilians would be killed on many of the missions. Much of a country could be destroyed in aliberation attempt. The financial cost of being a world policeman is extremely

high. People from other countries have different cultures & values; thus, we must respect the rights of those citizens to determinetheir own government.
http://www.cis.org/H1bVisaNumbershttp://www.cis.org/H1bVisaNumbershttp://www.balancedpolitics.org/world_policeman.htmhttp://www.cis.org/H1bVisaNumbershttp://www.cis.org/H1bVisaNumbershttp://www.balancedpolitics.org/world_policeman.htm


20/50


**Family Visas Aff**


21/50


Immigration Reform Benefits GL Communities

Laws are changing to benefit multiple forms of couples.Gibson 2010(Jake Gibson, Fox News Reporter, House Democrats insert Gay Rights into Immigration Debate July 15, 2010) KC

House Democrats are trying to broaden support for immigration reform by reaching out to the gay andlesbian community with a provision in immigration legislation that would allow gay and lesbianAmericans to bring foreign partners home to the United States.Under current law, American citizens andother legal permanent residents can get a green card or immigrant visa for a spouse or immediate familymembers living abroad. However, the same rights do not extend to same-sex couples living in thecountry. During a news conference on Capitol Hill Thursday, Democratic Reps. Jerrold Nadler of New York, Luis Gutierrez of Illinoisand Mike Honda of California, among others, urged Congress to pass the Uniting American Families Act as part of acomprehensive immigration reform package this year. "Right now too many same-sex, binational couplesface an impossible choice," said Gutierrez, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee's immigrationsubcommittee, "to live apart or to break the law to be with partners, their families and children."Government should never engage in purposeless, gratuitous cruelty and we should stop it," Nadler said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/15/house-democrats-insert-gay-rights-immigration-debate/http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/15/house-democrats-insert-gay-rights-immigration-debate/http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/15/house-democrats-insert-gay-rights-immigration-debate/


22/50


A2: K-1 Visa Waiting Times

K-1 Visas have short waiting times.Saborio 2009(Art Saborio, Immigration reporter, K-1 Visa Truths and Myths July 7, 2009) KC

The first truth or myth -It takes a year or more to get a immigration K1 Visa. This is a myth. If donecorrectly you can easily get a immigration K1 Visa within four to six months. Depending on the countrythat the immigrant fianc(e) is coming from, the marriage visa could be completed even sooner. I had a casewhere the fianc was coming from Argentina. It only took six weeks for the paperwork to get processed and K1 Visa granted to the immigrant

fiance. It all depends on the country and amount of applications being processed for that country. If yourfianc/Fiance is coming from Russia, Europe or any former Soviet State, then you can expect the average time to be between four and sixmonths.
http://ezinearticles.com/?K1-Visa-Truths-and-Myths&id=2622421http://ezinearticles.com/?K1-Visa-Truths-and-Myths&id=2622421http://ezinearticles.com/?K1-Visa-Truths-and-Myths&id=2622421


23/50


A2: V-Visa Wait Times

V-visas allow families to live in the US while waiting for visa availability.Messerly 2009(Ernest Messerly, Immigration Lawyer, Visa Victory September 10, 2009 http://immigration.lawyers.com/blogs/archives/2089-V-Visa-Victory.html) KC

The nonimmigrant V visa is commonly thought of as a thing of the past. But very recently I was fortunate enough to be able to rescue two

clients from seemingly hopeless situations in which they had been illegal for years by means of the V visa. Briefly, the V visa wascreated to allow family members of lawful permanent residents to reside legally in the US while waitingfor an immigrant visa to become available. Since family members of lawful permanent residents oftenhave many years to wait before an immigrant visa becomes available, the V visa allows for familyunification, allowing the family members to wait for visa availability in the US rather than in the nativecountry. However, the law that created the V visa requires that family member be the beneficiary of apetition filed on or before December 21, 2000. Because of the required filing date, there are few situations where a V visa isnow available. When USCIS initially implemented the rules and regulations for the V visa, they took the position that a child would lose theirV visa eligibility at age 21.
http://immigration.lawyers.com/blogs/archives/2089-V-Visa-Victory.htmlhttp://immigration.lawyers.com/blogs/archives/2089-V-Visa-Victory.htmlhttp://immigration.lawyers.com/blogs/archives/2089-V-Visa-Victory.htmlhttp://immigration.lawyers.com/blogs/archives/2089-V-Visa-Victory.html


24/50


CSPA Protects Children

CSPA helps immigration laws protect children of marriage visas.Perez 2010(Susan Perez, Immigration Lawyer, The Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) June 19, 2010http://immigration.lawyers.com/blogs/archives/6630-The-Child-Status-Protection-Act-CSPA.html ) KC

Since I started practicing immigration law, Ive been receiving a lot of inquiries regarding the Child Status Protection Act. Some

believed that their children had aged out at age 18. Our immigration laws define a child as an unmarried individualunder 21 years of age. The Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) does not change this definition, butchanges the point at which the childs age is calculated. The CSPA was enacted to provide relief tochildren who had aged out due to delays in processing of visa petitions. The CSPA freezes the age of thechild at a certain point and preserves the status as child until the visa becomes available. A lot of articles have

been written about the CSPA, but this remains to be a puzzle not only to ordinary people but even to lawyers. This is because the CSPA iscomplex and there are a number of unresolved issues. Up to now, there are no regulations implementing the CSPA. USCIS merely relies on

interpretative memoranda and some of these interpretations are narrow and against granting benefits to aliens. The simplest case is thechild of a U.S. citizen. Maria is 20 years old. Her U.S. citizen (USC) mother filed an I-130 petitiontoday. The CSPA freezes the age of a child of a USC parent on the date that the USC parent files an I-130visa petition for the child. In Marias case, she will remain a child even if her visa number becomes

available when shes 25 years old. This rule holds true even to stepchildren. But in the case of astepchild, there is a special rule that the marriage between the biological parent and USC stepparent musthave occurred before the stepchilds 18th birthday. The difficult CSPA cases involve petitions made byparents who are legal permanent residents (LPR) . Maria is 18 years old when her LPR mother filed an I-130 petition. Marias preference category is F2A or child of an LPR. When Maria turned 20 years old,her mother became a naturalized U.S. citizen. Marias age will freeze on the date of her mothersnaturalization. Since Maria was under 21 when her mother naturalized, Marias petition will be convertedinto immediate relative category. As such, she does not have to wait for her priority date to become current. Moreover, she retainsher status as child even if she is over 21 when her visa becomes available. Assuming Maria got married at age 18. Her USC mother filed an I-130 when Maria was 20 years old. A few months after the mother filed the I-130 petition, Marias annulment of marriage became final. Mariasage will freeze on the date when her annulment became final. If Maria was under 21 when this occurred, the petition will be converted to animmediate relative petition. Maria retains her status as child even if she is over 21 when her visa becomes available.
http://immigration.lawyers.com/blogs/archives/6630-The-Child-Status-Protection-Act-CSPA.htmlhttp://immigration.lawyers.com/blogs/archives/6630-The-Child-Status-Protection-Act-CSPA.html


25/50


A2: Immigration Flood

Family visas dont create a surge of immigrants

Moore and Anderson 97

(Stephen Moore and Stuart Anderson, Cutting Immigration Myths Down to Size, cato.org, April 22,1997)

A strongbipartisan support for getting tough on illegal immigration by strengthening borderenforcement, proposed changes to our legal immigration system are far more controversial. Supporters of furtherrestrictions on legal immigration fail to make a convincing case for why they are necessary. They typically relyon conventional myths that are easy to debunk. The most common myth: America has "uncontrolled" and "unprecedented"

immigration. In fact, the U.S. immigration system is both limited and highly regulated. A U.S. citizencan sponsor a spouse, parent, sibling, or minor or adult child.A lawful permanent resident cansponsor only a spouse or a child. Essentially the only other way to immigrate to America is as a refugee or through thestrict employment-based system.All of the family and employment categories are numerically capped,

with the exception of the spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens. Immigration actually declinednaturally in both 1994 and 1995. Today 9 percent of the American population is foreign born. We are less of a nation of immigrantsin 1996 than we were at anytime between 1850 and 1940 -- when the foreign-born population was at times almost twice as high as itis today.The second immigration myth: Current immigration law permits massive "chain migration." This term is used to describe

what happens when one immigrant arrives and sponsors relatives, causing one after another to come to the United States over a

short period of time. Nothing in current immigration law allows a person to sponsor an aunt, uncle,cousin or other "extended" family member. Myth number three: Our legal immigration system leads to illegalimmigration because "many illegal aliens first came in legally." Yes, theycome legally -- but primarily asstudents or tourists who overstay their visas, not under any family category. It is thereforefatuous to argue that cutting family-based immigration will somehow reduce illegalimmigration. Targeted measures, such as Senator Abraham's amendment to the Senate's illegal immigration bill, would addressthat problem by preventing tho
http://cato.org/http://cato.org/


26/50


Types of Family Visas are Unlimited/Limited

Types of Family Visas are unlimited

U.S. Department of State 10

(U.S. Department of State, Family Based Visas, The U.S. Department of State, 2010)

Immediate Relative Immigrant Visas (Unlimited): These visa types are based on a close familyrelationship with a United States (U.S.) citizen described as an Immediate Relative (IR). Thenumber ofimmigrants in these categories is not limited each fiscal year. Immediate relativevisa typesinclude; IR-1: Spouse of a U.S. Citizen, IR-2: Unmarried Child Under 21 Years of Age of a U.S.Citizen, IR-3: Orphan adopted abroad by a U.S. Citizen, IR-4: Orphan to be adopted in the U.S. by aU.S. citizen, IR-5: Parent of a U.S. Citizen who is at least 21 years old.

Types of Family Visas are limited

U.S. Department of State 10(U.S. Department of State, Family Based Visas, The U.S. Department of State, 2010)

Family Preference Immigrant Visas (Limited): These visa types are for specific, more distant, family relationshipswith a U.S. citizen and some specified relationships with a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR). There are fiscal yearnumerical limitations on family preference immigrants, shown at the end of each category. The familypreference categories are; Family First Preference (F1): Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens,and their minor children, if any. (23,400) Family Second Preference (F2): Spouses, minor children, andunmarried sons and daughters (age 21 and over) of LPRs.At least seventy-seven percent of all visasavailable for this category will go to the spouses and children; the remainder is allocated to unmarried sonsand daughters. (114,200) Family Third Preference (F3): Married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens, and theirspouses and children. (23,400) Family Fourth Preference (F4): Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens, and

their spouses and minor children, provided the U.S. citizens are at least 21 years of age. (65,000) Note:Grandparents, aunts, uncles, in-laws and cousins cannot sponsor a relative for immigration.


27/50


Remittance Hurts US Econ

US impacted negatively by separation of families.

United Families 2010(United Families, movement to unite families of Lawful permanent residents How Families Are Affected Accessed July 30, 2010 ) KC

There are significant adverse economic impacts to the U.S. when Lawful Permanent Residents are separated from their families.

Immigrants with immediate families abroad often remit part of their earnings to them. Every year, anestimated 4.2 billion U.S. dollars is sent out of the country by LPRs who are supporting their spouses andfamilies. Family unification would result in this money remaining in the U.S., as families of LPRs that cometo the country add to the consumer base. Money that would be sent abroad to support them is now spent in the U.S. Though itcan't be generalized, over time, entrepreneurial spirit in immigrants has resulted in a lot of success stories.Immigrants have a proven track record of creating jobs. An LPR forced to choose between country andfamily may choose to leave the U.S. When an LPR leaves the country, they take their jobs with them. Jobsthat may have been created in the U.S. as a result of the LPR's entrepreneurship would be moved elsewhere. This is demonstrated by a case study

on the impact of reverse brain drain on the Taiwanese economy. In general, LPRs contribute significantly to the success of theU.S. economy, as, on average, immigrants contribute $80K more in taxes over their lifetime than theyreceive in benefits. Taking aside moral aspects of this issue, the U.S. has still much to gain by uniting families of LPRs.
http://www.unitefamilies.org/eng/learn/families.htmlhttp://www.unitefamilies.org/eng/learn/families.html


28/50


**Family Visas Neg**


29/50


K-3 Visas Fail

K-3 Visas is a confusing process to navigate.Cruz 2010(Reva Cruz, Immigration lawyer K-3 Visa Spouse Visa Processing 2010http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/164003/travel_tips/k_3_visa___spouse_visa_processing.html ) KC

K-3 Visa - Spouse visa processing is a rather lengthy and complicated process that involvesseveral steps. It should be ideally made through an authorized immigration law firm that has extensive experience with US immigrationlaws, policies, regulations and procedures. Normally, K-3 Visas are issued to those people whose spouses are US citizens. The timeduration of K-3 Visa - Spouse visa processing varies greatly on the basis of the applicants circumstances,nationality and the concerned embassy. The whole process will take around 5 to 7 months. Incorrectlyfilled out forms and varying degrees of inefficiency of visa granting governmental agencies can lag theprocessing of the K-3 Visa - Spouse visa application. If your part of filing and submission of visa application is done in thecorrect way and through proper channel, you can reduce the spouse visa processing time to a great extent. K-3 Visa processing isgenerally performed at the concerned USCIS (US Citizenship and Immigration Services) office and at the Consulate.Before applying for the K3 Visa, an applicant must fulfill certain qualification requirements. They include: Must be married to a U.S. citizenwho has filed a pending Petition for Alien Relative, Form I-130. Must be shown as the beneficiary on an approved I-129F form Must seekadmission to the U.S. to wait for the completion of the immigration process. If the applicant satisfies the above conditions, he or she can go

forward with the visa application procedures. The supporting documents to be produced at the time of submission of application form are: Legalcertificates supporting birth, marriage, divorce and death. Valid passport Medical exam report from an approved physician or hospital Police

certificate Though the whole immigration process involves a number of tedious steps, you can bring your alien spouse tostay together in the US in the shortest possible time if you seek expert consultation from an approved immigration attorney. Based on your uniquecircumstances , he will definitely find the best strategy to facilitate your K-3 Visa - Spouse visa processing.
http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/164003/travel_tips/k_3_visa___spouse_visa_processing.htmlhttp://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/164003/travel_tips/k_3_visa___spouse_visa_processing.html


30/50


K-3 Visas Trade-Off

Changes in law of K-3 visas affect other K visas.Hart 2010(Ben Hart, Managing Director of Integrity Legal K-3 Visa Spouse Visa Processing March 4, 2010http://www.articlesbase.com/law-articles/will-recent-nvc-processing-changes-impact-the-k1-visa-process-1940079.html ) KC

The United States National Visa Center(NVC) recently stated that as of 02/01/2010 they will no longerprocess I-129f petitions for K3 marriage visa benefits if the I-130 petition arrives before, or with, thesupplemental I-129f petition. There may be those readers who are probably wondering what impact this will have upon visa seekers.For those seeking a K-3 visa, the possible consequence of this recent announcement is very important since theNVC, in certain situations, is now compelling couples to seek immigrant spouse visa benefits in the formof the IR-1 visa and the CR-1 visa rather than the non-immigrant K-3 visa. Although, the K3 visapetitioner submits an I-129f petition form in order to apply for K3 visa benefits this petition is alsoutilized when applying for fiance visa benefits as well. What effect will the recently announced rule change have upon the K-1 visa obtainment process? In order to obtain an American fianc visa, the American Citizen must submit an I-129f petition for K-1 visa benefits. If the petition is approved, then it will be sent to the National Visa Center (NVC) for processing.After the NVC processes the application, it will be forwarded to the US Embassy or Consulate-General with proper jurisdiction. Confusion

may arise as there are those who may be placed under the mistaken impression that the I-129f petitionwill be administratively closed by NVC in a K-1 visa case. This is not likely to be the case, as so-called "administrativeclosures" of I-129f petitions are only supposed to occur in the context of applications for K-3 visa benefits and not in the context of K-1 visa

benefits. This recent change in the rules will likely have no impact upon the K-1 visa process as the rule is designed to only impact the K-3 visaprocess.
http://www.articlesbase.com/law-articles/will-recent-nvc-processing-changes-impact-the-k1-visa-process-1940079.htmlhttp://www.articlesbase.com/law-articles/will-recent-nvc-processing-changes-impact-the-k1-visa-process-1940079.html


31/50


Family Visas Fail Wait Time

Family Visas have a long wait time causing problems.Estrella 2005(Cicero Estrella, Chronicle Staff Writer, Reporter, Laws Could Help Unite Immigrant Families December 12, 2005< http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/12/BAG9CG6DON1.DTL >) KC

The spouses of legal permanent residents, or green card holders, such as Balas cannot enter the United

States, even for a brief visit, during the five years permanent residents must wait before they are eligiblefor U.S. citizenship. But Unite Families, a support group with 600 members nationwide, including Balas and 25 others in the Bay Area, isappealing to Congress to change the law. "I never thought it would be this difficult," Balas said. Each fiscal year, the U.S.Department of State provides 480,000 family visas, which an immigrant's spouse and nonmarried childrenunder 21 use to stay in the country while awaiting immigrant status. Immediate family members ofcitizens get priority, and the remainder are available to other groups, including the immediate family oflegal permanent residents. Demand for visas exceeds the supply, and applications take four to five yearsto process because of the backlog, according to the State Department's visa bulletin. Visitor visas, whichallow a temporary stay, are not usually an option for people like Renuka Balas,because they must prove they do notintend to immigrate. In a second paradox, Bay Area high-tech workers from Asia who enter the country on student or worker visas, which

afford temporary residence, have an easier time obtaining visitor visas for family members before they apply for a green card. "I really don'tsee a reason why things are the way they are," said Alex Maslov, 31, who hopes to marry a woman from his country,Russia. "If I had a wife and children now, I wouldn't have a problem bringing them here with my H-1B(worker visa). Once I get a green card, there's no way. That's unfair treatment of (legal) residents."

Because of the 5 year wait period, parents lose out on childrens lives,fiancs separated and single LPRs affected.

United Families 2010(United Families, movement to unite families of Lawful permanent residents How Families Are Affected Accessed July 30, 2010 ) KC

Family separation is a serious issue. It causes significant emotional turmoil and can have long-

lasting and devastating effects. Lawful Permanent Reside

Visas Good Bad

Documents

Transcript of Visas Good Bad