Miami Immigration Lawyers Blog

The Board of Immigration Appeals in Matter of E. W. Rodriguez, 25 I&N Dec. 784 (BIA 2012) issued a bright-line holding that in the Fourth, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits an aggravated felony conviction precludes the availability of a waiver under section 212(h) only if the conviction occurred after the person was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident after inspection at a port of entry.

This means that the persons before the Immigration Courts within the jurisdictions of the Fourth, Fifth and Eleventh Circuits, who adjusted their status in the United States after entering in another status or without inspection, an aggravated felony does not preclude them from applying for a waiver under 212(h). The BIA clarified that the prohibition from eligibility under 212(h) remains intact in all the other circuits for all persons who are lawful permanent residents regardless of whether the persons adjusted their status in the United States or were admitted to the United States as lawful permanent residents.

It appears from the BIA's decision in Matter of E.W. Rodriguez that the Respondent was applying for adjustment of status with a waiver for an aggravated felony conviction. The Immigration Judge erroneously found that the Respondent was ineligible, even though he adjusted status to that of a lawful permanent resident after already being present in the United States pursuant to an entry without inspection. It appears that the Respondent was required to reapply for adjustment of status instead of simply filing a stand-alone waiver.

Many Immigration Judges and Immigration Prosecutors have taken the position that a standalone waiver cannot be submitted. According to them, a waiver must be made in conjunction with an application for adjustment of status. This in complete contradiction to the interpretation of the Eleventh Circuit's position in Lanier v. U.S Attorney General, 631 F.3d 1363 (11th Cir. 2011). The Eleventh Circuit in Lanier citing to Yeung v. I.N.S., 76 F.3rd 337 (11th Cir. 1995) noted in footnote one that the waiver is available to individuals in removal proceedings.

This means that the waiver should be available as a stand-alone application. This is extremely important to argue in Immigration Court considering that many individuals may not have the ability to reapply for adjustment of status in removal proceedings where, for example, there is no longer an immediately available petitioner. These individuals will have no choice but to file a standalone waiver. This undoubtedly will be a heavily litigated issue since many Immigration Judges do not agree with the interpretation of the Eleventh Circuit's position.

For more information regarding waivers, contact Antonio G. Revilla at (305) 858-2323.

About Revilla Law Firm, P.A.
Antonio Revilla is a Former U.S. Immigration Prosecutor and Miami Immigration Lawyer. Mr. Revilla founded his immigration law practice, Revilla Law Firm, when he saw a dire need for aggressive immigration representation and deportation defense in order to keep families united.

If you wish to receive more information about any immigration issue, you can contact Revilla Law Firm at 305-858-2323 to speak with Antonio Revilla.

For more information, contact Antonio G. Revilla at (305) 858-2323.

About Revilla Law Firm, P.A.
Antonio Revilla is a Former U.S. Immigration Prosecutor and Miami Immigration Lawyer. Mr. Revilla founded his immigration law practice, Revilla Law Firm, when he saw a dire need for aggressive immigration representation and deportation defense in order to keep families united.

If you wish to receive more information about any immigration issue, you can contact Revilla Law Firm at 305-858-2323 to speak with Antonio Revilla.

Many removable non-citizens are subject to the draconian immigration law of mandatory detention because of their criminal convictions. A lot of people will actually spend more time detained by ICE than the time for which they were originally incarcerated or imprisoned for their criminal charges and convictions.

Immigration detention is not supposed to be a punishment. However, mandatory detention can turn into a form of punishment when ICE is not convinced to exercise its authority to parole individuals pending removal proceedings. A strong case should be made for ICE to make a determination that a person should be paroled because they are neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community. A similar approach that is employed in requesting a bond with the Immigration Court should be made with ICE in the form of a request for parole.

A careful analysis of eligibility for relief from removal should be made and explained to ICE along with the traditional factors which demonstrate that an individual is not a flight risk nor a danger to the community. Carefully drafted and well-argued requests for parole may have an impact on ICE, which may very well result in the release of many people from mandatory detention.

For more information about mandatory detention, please contact Miami immigration lawyer Antonio Revilla at (305) 858-2323 or via email arevilla@immigrationmiami.com.

About Revilla Law Firm, P.A.
Antonio Revilla is a Former U.S. Immigration Prosecutor and Miami Immigration Lawyer. Mr. Revilla founded his immigration law practice, Revilla Law Firm, when he saw a dire need for aggressive immigration representation and deportation defense in order to keep families united.

If you wish to receive more information about any immigration issue, you can contact Revilla Law Firm at 305-858-2323 to speak with Antonio Revilla.

On October 12, 2011, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Sanchez Fajardo v. U.S. Attorney General effectively overturned the BIA Decision of Silva-Trevino. The 11th Circuit held that the Immigration Court cannot look beyond the record of conviction when applying the modified categorical approach in determining whether a conviction is a crime involving moral turpitude under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Silva-Trevino held that an Immigration Judge can go beyond the record of conviction if the record of conviction does not resolve the question of whether a conviction is a crime involving moral turpitude. This had left the door open for the Immigration Court to consider evidence that was not part of what constitutes admissible evidence used to prove a criminal charge in a criminal court.

Now, in light of Sanchez Fajardo, the Immigration Court should not consider evidence beyond the record of conviction in determining whether a conviction is a crime involving moral turpitude. This means that when the Immigration Court is making a crime involving moral turpitude determination, immigration attorneys should always be ready to object to any evidence considered by the Immigration Court which is beyond the admissible portions of the record of conviction.

This objection especially applies to an arrest form or complaint which is inherently unreliable and untrustworthy, as it is inadmissible hearsay and is not an admissible portion of a record of conviction.

About Revilla Law Firm, P.A.
Antonio Revilla is a Former U.S. Immigration Prosecutor and Miami Immigration Lawyer. Mr. Revilla founded his immigration law practice, Revilla Law Firm, when he saw a dire need for aggressive immigration representation and deportation defense in order to keep families united.

If you wish to receive more information about any immigration issue, you can contact Revilla Law Firm at 305-858-2323 to speak with Antonio Revilla. He can also be reached via email at arevilla@immigrationmiami.com or by phone (305) 858-2323.

California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a portion of what is known as the Dream Act, which will ease access to privately funded financial aid for undocumented college students. The signing of this bill means that undocumented immigrants who have earned a diploma after attending at least three years of high school in California are eligible for privately-funded scholarships.

Although this bill is named the DREAM Act, it is different from the federal proposal and does not provide a path to citizenship. The signing of this bill provides easier access to educational opportunities for deserving students who were brought into the United States through no fault of their own.

The second part of the state's Dream Act would allow undocumented students to receive publicly funded financial aid and is still pending in the Legislature. Governor Brown indicated he would be inclined to support this more controversial measure, allowing those students to seek state-funded tuition aid in the future.

A marriage interview is an interview conducted by the U.S. Government to determine the validity of a marriage. The U.S. Government uses the interview to make a finding regarding whether the marriage was entered into for the purpose of circumventing immigration laws.

This interview occurs as part of the residency process when a spouse is petitioning for the other spouse to become a permanent resident. A marriage interview can be a very stressful and intimidating experience for many married couples. It can last several hours depending on the case.

An officer will conduct the interview with the married couple. The officer will review the bona fides of the marriage. These are documents such as bank accounts, titles, deeds, bills, birth certificates, and correspondence which establish the validity of the marriage. The officer will also ask questions of the married couple regarding the relationship in general and the history of the relationship. The questions can be very detailed and difficult to answer. The couple will often be separated and questioned at length. The interviews are sometimes videotaped or recorded. It is advisable for any couple to consult and prepare with a qualified immigration attorney before proceeding with marriage-based residency and before attending a marriage interview.

If you require additional information about Marriage Interviews, contact Revilla Law Firm for a free in-office consultation (305) 858-2323.

About Lawyer Antonio Revilla
Antonio Revilla is a Former U.S. Immigration Prosecutor and Miami Immigration Lawyer. Mr. Revilla founded his immigration law practice, Revilla Law Firm, when he saw a dire need for aggressive immigration representation and deportation defense in order to keep families united.

If you wish to receive more information about any immigration issue, you can contact Revilla Law Firm at (305) 858-2323 to speak with Antonio Revilla. He can also be reached via email at arevilla@immigrationmiami.com

Now that the Obama Administration is detaining more individuals than ever before, bonds and other alternatives to detention have become very important.

A person who is detained by the Department of Homeland Security may be eligible to request or move that the Immigration Court set a reasonable bond. The minimum bond amount that the Immigration Court can set is $1,500.

An individual who has previously been admitted to the United States, or a person who entered without inspection, is eligible for bond as long as they are not subject to mandatory detention based on a criminal conviction. An arriving alien, who is someone that is applying for admission to the United States, is not eligible for bond. Ineligibility for bond based on mandatory detention or the allegation that a person is an arriving alien can be challenged in Immigration Court.

Once a motion for bond redetermination is filed with the Immigration Court, the Court will set a bond hearing. At the bond hearing, the Court will hear testimony and review evidence. The Immigration Court will make a determination as to whether the person seeking bond is a flight risk or a danger to the community. In a bond hearing, the Immigration Court will review a person's criminal history and determine eligibility for relief from removal. The Court will also look at other factors such as ties to the community and humanitarian equities to make a bond redetermination. The Immigration Court's decision at a bond hearing can be appealed to the Board of Immigration Apppeals.

For more information about Bond Motions, contact Revilla Law Firm for a free in-office consultation at (305) 858-2323.

About Antonio Revilla
Antonio Revilla is a Former U.S. Immigration Prosecutor and Miami Immigration Lawyer. Mr. Revilla founded his immigration law practice, Revilla Law Firm, when he saw a dire need for aggressive immigration representation and deportation defense in order to keep families united.

If you wish to receive more information about any immigration issue, you can contact Revilla Law Firm at 305-858-2323 to speak with Antonio Revilla. He can also be reached via email at arevilla@immigrationmiami.com or by phone (305) 858-2323.

Alabama's Republican governor, Robert Bentley, has signed an anti-illegal immigration bill that is considered the toughest crackdown in the country thus far. The immigration bill, known as HB 56, surpasses Arizona's immigration law with oppressive provisions that affect law enforcement, transportation, apartment rentals, employment and education.

Alabama's immigration law requires that when an individual is stopped for any reason by law enforcement, police should make a reasonable attempt to determine a person's citizenship and immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion."

The law also prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving state or local public benefits, prevents them from applying for and/or soliciting work by having employers check the legal status of workers using a federal system called E-Verify. The bill also makes it a crime to knowingly give an illegal immigrant a ride and outlaws renting property to illegal immigrants.

Additionally, the restrictive legislation includes an education provision that would check the immigration status of students. The measure does not prohibit illegal immigrants from attending public school, but lawmakers said the purpose instead is to gather data that would measure the number of illegal immigrants enrolled and how the much the state is spending to educate them. Jared Shepherd, an attorney for the ACLU, warned that because of that provision, some immigrant parents may not send their children to school for fear of arrest or deportation.

Alabama is said to have approximately 120,000 illegal immigrants, a substantial increase from a decade ago, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. One of the legislation's sponsors, GOP Sen. Scott Beason, said it would help the unemployed by preventing illegal immigrants from getting jobs in the state.

By Immigration Lawyer Antonio Revilla
This legislation is un-American, unconstitutional, and unjust for the thousands of hardworking individuals, of good moral character, who have established lives in Alabama. They and their children will be denied jobs, education, housing, and benefits, making it virtually impossible for them to advance or even maintain the lives they have built. Stripping people of opportunities that could stimulate our economy and contribute to our global competitiveness is exactly what will paralyze America as other countries move forward. This draconian bill is yet another example of a sad, but growing trend, among politicians that create divisiveness through the spread of xenophobia and the resurrection of jingoism.

Antonio Revilla is a Former U.S. Immigration Prosecutor and Miami Immigration Lawyer. Mr. Revilla founded his immigration law practice, Revilla Law Firm, when he saw a dire need for aggressive immigration representation and deportation defense in order to keep families united.

If you wish to contact Mr. Revilla about any immigration issue, he can be reached via email at arevilla@immigrationmiami.com or by phone (305) 858-2323.

On Friday, Florida House and Senate lawmakers failed to reach an agreement on a bill that would crack down on illegal immigration. Although the bill failed this year, it is likely to resurface in next year's legislative session.

This year, the House sat on its tougher immigration bill while waiting for the Senate to finalize its proposal. As the Senate's immigration bill, SB 2040, was passed in the final days of the session, the House had too little time to take up the measure.

The Senate bill required that the police make "a reasonable effort" to determine the immigration status of people they arrest and jail, a provision that would inevitably lead to racial profiling and unfair targeting of legal and illegal immigrants. The proposal would also require that illegal immigrants who are convicted of nonviolent crimes be referred to federal officials for deportation.

Since his campaign for governor, Rick Scott hasn't been nearly as vocal on the immigration issue; however, he stated on Friday that the immigration bill is still important and stressed the importance of being ready for the next legislative session.

As Immigration Reform is yet again thrust to the forefront of American politics, President Obama gathered business, labor, religious and political leaders at the White House on Tuesday to address our nation's immigration laws and to strategize about reviving the overhaul legislation in Congress.

With the mounting frustration among Latino leaders and communities regarding immigration policies, the President is attempting to initiate efforts to pass the immigration overhaul, which could potentially provide legal status for millions of illegal immigrants. Under the Obama administration, deportations have reached record numbers and immigrant communities are growing increasingly exasperated with the lack of relief and reform legislation. Although certain Latino groups applauded President Obama for Tuesday's immigration brainstorming session, it is apparent that the probability of passing an immigration overhaul is unlikely considering the Republican majority in the House of Representatives that is strongly opposed to reform legislation. During the meeting, President Obama asked for assistance in garnering Republican support for the bill.

According to attendees of the meeting, President Obama stated that the immigration overhaul would promote entrepreneurialism and has the potential to stimulate economic recovery in the United States. Other immigration topics discussed during the session included the prospect of passing smaller pieces of legislation, such as the DREAM Act, which would provide a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrant students, who through no fault of their own, were brought to this country by their undocumented parents. Another piece of legislation would increase visas for highly skilled foreign workers.

With a country divided on immigration reform, and the presidential election upon us next year, one thing is clear - Latino voters could be a major force in many crucial states throughout the country. Nevertheless, many Republicans in Congress maintain their staunch opposition to an immigration overhaul that they erroneously believe will unjustly provide amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants.

On Monday, a three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a federal judge's decision that blocked the most contentious provisions of Arizona's SB1070 immigration law from going into effect.

The appellate court found that major provisions of the law were unconstitutional and interfered with the federal government's authority over immigration. The ruling is a victory for the Obama administration, which challenged Arizona's immigration law in court last year by filing a lawsuit just days before the law went into effect.

The controversial immigration law was signed last year by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who argued that the federal government failed to police borders and that her state was overrun by dangerous illegal immigrants, despite the record levels of deportations that have occurred under President Obama.

The most controversial provision of the Arizona law is that law enforcement would be authorized to demand proof of immigration status during routine stops if the officers found reasonable suspicion that a person is an illegal immigrant. Other provisions, such as requiring immigrants to carry their papers and preventing illegal immigrants to work or look for work were also challenged. Critics of the immigration law argued that these aspects were unconstitutional and would inevitably lead to racial profiling.

After the appeals court issued its decision that Arizona had overstepped its authority on immigration and foreign policy, Ms. Brewer and the attorney general pledged to continue fighting for the law, believing that the decision could be overturned by the United States Supreme Court. State Senator Russell K. Pearce, a Republican and the main sponsor of the Arizona law also suggested that the issue would ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.

Last week, Florida's House Judiciary Committee approved an immigration bill that will require businesses to use the federal government's electronic verification program to ensure that new employees are in the country legally. The bill presented mandates that all businesses use E-verify by 2013. Businesses that do not use E-verify and employ illegal immigrants could see their Florida licenses revoked.

The immigration bill, which is being referred to as a "watered-down" version of the Arizona immigration law, also allows law enforcement officials to request proof of citizenship during an arrest, criminal investigation, or if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that someone may be engaging in criminal activity. Unlike Arizona's controversial law, Florida's bill does not authorize law enforcement to demand proof of citizenship during traffic stops.

Rep. Will Snyder, R-Stuart sponsored the bill and acknowledged that the legislation is more moderate than Arizona's immigration law. Snyder's bill is the first of a few immigration measures already being presented in the Florida Legislature. A Senate bill, sponsored by Miami Republican Sen. Anitere Flores, will be voted on early this week. This bill does not require law enforcement to check the immigration status of arrested individuals or criminal suspects in cases where "reasonable suspicion" exists. The Senate bill instead would require jail, prison and other detention officers to check the status of an inmate.

Revilla Law Firm will continue to monitor this story and provide updates about the progress of any immigration laws being passed in the Florida Legislature. As a firm dedicated to keeping people in the United States, we welcome your questions or concerns regarding any immigration matter.

Immigration Lawyer Antonio Revilla

The American political winds are constantly shifting. Our nation's policies and laws change to the sway of a pendulum that will never stop in the middle of its motion. With an economy still in recovery and high unemployment rates, it is no surprise that policies such as immigration reform are facing an unknown trajectory in this stormy political climate.

A disconcerting amount of States are attempting to, or have already passed, an alarming number of anti-immigrant measures. This is simply a repetition of human history fueled by the agenda of politicians seeking reelection at the detriment of individuals being unfairly blamed for our country's problems. Americans should view these pernicious and pervasive anti-immigrant bills as nothing more than "politics as usual." Instead of adopting a misplaced fear of immigrants, Americans should question the motives of politicians who target immigrants with unconstitutional weapons skillfully disguised as protective armor for an "immigrant invasion" that simply does not exist.

Historically, politicians have targeted groups of people as the supposed causes for a variety of issues negatively impacting our country. These targeted groups generally lacked significant political clout and were minorities, as is the case with immigrants being used as "scape goats" through flawed political rhetoric that challenges our Constitution and the fabric of this Country. With a precarious economy and high unemployment rates, the timing is perfect for instilling unjustifiable fear and un-American sentiments toward immigrants.

Many American politicians are tenaciously trying to secure their jobs much like anyone else. The peculiar thing is that many politicians use different tactics than the rest of us to ensure job security. Politicians know what motivates the electorate: economics and fear, with a sprinkling of ideology. Immigrants are being erroneously blamed for the weakened economy where the real culprits comprise of overspending on Defense, Medicare, and Social Security. Any spending on government services for immigrants is negligible and has virtually no impact on the economy. Statistically, immigrants are the least likely group to be on welfare and are, likewise, less likely to take advantage of related social programs.

It is a misplaced fear that immigrants are the cause for the struggling economy. Unfortunately, many crafty politicians are using this fabricated fear to convince an uninformed electorate to vote for those that can "protect" them from this fear. This tactic is nothing new.

Unless politicians have a cause, they are irrelevant and, in turn, unelectable. Some causes are noble and help America move forward and change for the betterment of our people. On the other side of the pendulum are malevolent causes that fool Americans into supporting certain politicians.

When Americans see themselves as victims of unscrupulous political tactics that hurt their immigrant family members, friends, associates, and other immigrants that actually bolster our economy, the political winds will change and the pendulum of American politics will swing back to where it properly belongs; on the side of immigration reform. Many politicians will also learn a difficult lesson; that the Hispanic vote is important to their political survival. While some Hispanics may speak with an accent, they do not think with one. Hispanics are increasingly becoming the majority in our communities and their voices are growing increasingly louder.

Arizona is once again making headlines with another immigration bill that could deny citizenship to children born of undocumented parents. Last week, State Republican legislator John Kavanagh filed an immigration bill that would challenge the right of children born in the state to illegal immigrants or other non-citizens to benefit from birthright citizenship, a right that is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

Republicans introduced bills in the Arizona legislature in order to provoke a Supreme Court review that "can end the controversy over the true meaning of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause." Kavanagh also stated that this bill was created "to deny citizenship to any child born of parents who are not citizens of the United States, be they illegal aliens, or foreigners on business or for tourist purposes." This new bill comes on the heels of Arizona passing the nation's toughest immigration law and is already sparking controversy for potentially denying the rights of children, who through no fault of their own, were born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents.

By Miami Immigration Lawyer Antonio Revilla
Arizona's proposal to deny citizenship of children born to parents that are not citizens of the U.S. is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment states in pertinent part that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." This means that any person born in the U.S. that is subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen of the U.S. By operation of law, this would exclude only children of diplomats since diplomats are not necessarily subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Arizona's politicians erroneously rely on early Supreme Court cases such as the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884) as their basis for proposing to ban birthright citizenship. The reliance on these cases is misplaced. The Slaughterhouse cases were civil rights cases dealing with the issue of whether states could limit the privileges and immunities of state citizens as opposed to U.S. citizens. The Supreme Court ruled that the states could limit certain state's rights of state citizens, but could not affect the federal rights of U.S. citizens. The Slaughterhouse cases did not disturb the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.

The Elk v. Wilkins case addressed the issue of birthright citizenship as applied to Indians born in Indian territories that at the time in American History were considered foreign states. The Supreme Court at the time considered such Indians, absent a U.S. Treaty, to be subject to the jurisdiction of their tribes and territories which were considered foreign states. Indians born in their foreign states at the time were considered to be aliens much like anyone else from a foreign country or jurisdiction. Once again, it is misplaced to rely on this case to ban birthright citizenship since the Indians were at the time generally considered to be aliens just like anyone else born outside the jurisdiction of the U.S.

The insidious design of this proposal is actually blatant on various levels. It plays on American's misplaced fears of immigrants. The end result would be to reduce the Hispanic vote in America since it is no surprise that the majority of immigrants in the U.S. are Hispanic. This could potentially strengthen conservative political power.

Millions of children born in the U.S. would not be considered citizens with the right to vote, yet they would be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. for taxation purposes and the application of state and federal laws.

This proposal is un-American and is an example of a sad, but growing trend, of certain politicians creating divisiveness through the spread of xenophobia and the resurrection of jingoism. This, of course, is all being done for political gain by using immigrants as scapegoats.

During his campaign, Gov. Rick Scott pledged to bring an Arizona-type immigration law to Florida; however, that legislation is losing momentum as the bill's main sponsor, Senator Mike Bennett, is now concerned that the bill could spark controversy regarding racial and ethnic profiling. Interestingly, Bennett is the Senator who recently filed the proposed legislation to initiate conversations about pursuing the passage of an Arizona-type immigration law in Florida.

The provision Bennett expressed doubts over is the requirement that law enforcement officers could request proof of an individual's immigration status during routine traffic stops or arrests. Although the bill is said to prohibit law enforcement from using race as a reason for checking the individual's documentation, Bennett does not feel this will be sufficient in preventing racial or ethic profiling. The issue of discrimination is also a concern for the Legislature's 10-member Hispanic caucus, eight of which are Republican. Furthermore, Hispanics are Florida's fastest growing voting bloc and they account for 72 percent of Miami-Dade's Republican electorate.

Even though Bennett is now reconsidering his previous position on the matter, he and other lawmakers still contend that they do support a requirement for state and potentially private employers to check the immigration status of prospective employees through the federal government's E-Verify system. Gov. Scott has already signed an executive order that requires all agencies under his control to use E-Verify.

As for Scott's position on an immigration law in Florida, he has yet to make a decision.

A group of Legislatures are planning to unveil a plan today that could prevent children born on U.S. soil to illegal immigrant parents from becoming citizens at birth. Citizenship is automatically granted to those born in the United States pursuant to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The lawmakers will not initiate the involved process of proposing a change to the Constitution. Instead, they are considering a move that will advocate a state-by-state approach which will encompass two types of birth certificates in their states: one for the children of citizens and another for the children of illegal immigrants. Further details regarding the legislation should be unveiled today.

By Miami Immigration Lawyer Antonio Revilla
There is a misconception that children born to illegal immigrant parents or 'anchor babies', as they are commonly known, can help their undocumented parents achieve legal status in this country. The term 'anchor baby' is in fact a fictional term because these children cannot help their parents with immigration status until the age of 21, but this only applies if the parents entered this country with legal status to begin with. Any child born to parents who came here illegally cannot help their parents pursue legal status based on current laws. Undocumented family members are being deported every day in this country, despite the fact that their spouse or children are U.S. citizens.

The proposed legislation is not only a violation of the 14th Amendment, it will essentially create unequal statuses of people who were all born on U.S. soil, consisting of those born to undocumented parents and those who are born to parents with citizenship or legal residence.

This legislation violates the fundamental nature of the United States and promotes an immoral effort to relegate children born to illegal immigrant parents to a second class status in this country, even though they were born on U.S. soil. It goes against the principles and fabric of this country, which stand for equality and justice. This unconstitutional legislation will unfairly and unjustly penalize individuals who were in fact born in this country through no fault of their own.