Gustavo Villageliu was appointed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) as a Board Member in July of 1995. The BIA is the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws. Mr. Villageliu came to the United States from Cuba as a refugee in 1962 when he was thirteen years old. He and his family lived in Miami for twelve years, then moved to Iowa, where his parents taught as University professors.
Mr. Villageliu attended law school at the University of Iowa, graduating cum laude in 1977. After serving as Johnson County Attorney Prosecutor Intern in Iowa City, Iowa, he joined the Board of Immigration Appeals as a staff attorney in January, 1978. He received numerous achievement awards for his work specializing in war criminals, investors, and criminal alien cases. In September of 1989 he moved to Miami as an Immigration Judge, where he handled cases of detained Cubans at the Krome detention center. As a BIA Board Member, Mr. Villageliu dissented in the landmark case, Matter of N-J-B. In that February 1997 decision, the BIA held that the service of an Order to Show Cause under prior law terminated the period of physical presence for purposes of applying for suspension of deportation, even though the Order was served before the 1996 Act's effective date. This ruling would have resulted in the deportation of tens of thousands of persons who may have qualified for suspension of deportation under previous law. On July 10, 1997, the Attorney General vacated the Board's decision in that case essentially adopting Mr. Villageliu's opinion. Mr. Villageliu and his wife Carmen live in Falls Church with their three children.
Guillermo Cantor, the Senior Policy Analyst at the Immigration Policy Center, was published in Aging Today in an article titled, "Will Immigration Reform Address Our Need for Eldercare Workers?"
In it, Cantor writes:
"The implications of S. 744 are manifold. First, by offering a path to citizenship for undocumented workers currently living in the country, the bill would certainly help stabilize the direct care workforce, which would in turn improve the quality of care. In particular, as a 2011 report by the National Council on Aging (NCOA) and the National Hispanic Council on Aging (NHCOA) has shown, once unauthorized care workers become legalized, they can legally drive, undergo enhanced background checks and access better opportunities for training and career advancement.
While the legalization of undocumented workers constitutes a significant step forward in strengthening the direct care workforce of current undocumented workers, the bill’s implications for the future flow of immigrant care workers must also be considered. Several signs suggest that the new legal immigration system created by S. 744 falls short of providing a sustainable solution to the eldercare shortage."
Jeffrey Kaye is a Los Angeles‐based freelance journalist. He has been a longtime contributor to the PBS NewsHour and World Report, the public affairs program of HDNet television. Between 1980 and 1984, Kaye was a reporter and senior producer at KCET‐TV (PBS) in Los Angeles. Previously, he worked as a magazine writer, a freelance reporter for National Public Radio, a TV producer, and as a special correspondent for the Washington Post and other publications.
The editorial stated: "If a Border Patrol agent beats, kicks, threatens or otherwise abuses you, you can file a complaint. What you can’t count on, evidently, is anything being done about it.
That is the sorry conclusion of a study released last week by the American Immigration Council, an advocacy organization in Washington. The council sought to collect data about abuse complaints against the Border Patrol — a difficult task, given the lack of transparency at Customs and Border Protection, the agency within the Department of Homeland Security to which the Border Patrol belongs.
The council had to sue under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain records of 809 complaints between January 2009 and January 2012. The accusations varied widely — of migrants kicked and stomped after being detained, struck in the face and head with flashlights and other objects, sexually groped, improperly strip-searched, verbally abused."
As the New York Times reported today, the Obama administration has reiterated its intention to tackle comprehensive immigration reform this year. Recent statements from Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid have also signaled their support. Yet some observers had assumed that the promise President Obama made during his campaign to reform the dysfunctional U.S. immigration system during his first year in office would be sidelined by the current recession. But, as the White House made clear today, the President intends to make good on his promise. The following is a statement by Angela Kelley, Director of the Immigration Policy Center (IPC) in Washington, DC.
LAC Wins Release of H-1B Fraud Documents AILA v. DHS, No. 10-01224 (D.D.C. summary judgment granted in part March 30, 2012)
In May 2012, USCIS released in full the remaining contested documents in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit brought by the LAC and Steptoe & Johnson LLP on behalf of AILA. Filed in July 2010, the case sought the public release of records concerning USCIS fraud investigations in the H-1B program. For the past several years, USCIS’s H-1B visa review and processing procedures have caused confusion and concern among U.S. businesses that depend on temporary foreign workers with specialized knowledge to operate successfully.Read more...
On Thursday, May 22, the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border, Maritime, and Global Counterterrorism will hold a hearing on "The Border Security Challenge: Recent Developments and Legislative Proposals."
Washington D.C. - This Sunday, the editorial pages of the Washington Post included a piece penned by journalist George Will on the topic of birthright citizenship. Will highlights a scholar who argues against giving those born in the United States birthright citizenship and characterizes the repeal of a 150 year-old constitutional tenet as "a simple reform." Normally, the idea of stripping those born in America of their right to citizenship has been relegated to the domain of immigration restrictionists and select politicians who try to exploit it for electoral gains. In endorsing this argument, Mr. Will has looked past a whole body of research which examines the dramatic and far- reaching consequences this would have on American society.
The arguments about birthright citizenship revolve around the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which affirms that all persons born in the United States (and subject to its jurisdiction) have a birthright to citizenship. A repeal of the 14th amendment is sometimes raised as a "cure" to our current broken immigration system, when in reality it takes us further away from the larger conversation that must be had about how we can fairly and efficiently revamp American immigration. Proposing solutions to the symptoms, rather than the root causes of a broken system, do nothing to solve our overall immigration problems and create divisions and dysfunctions in our society at all levels.