2300 River Plaza Drive, Sacramento, California 95833-3239 • (800) 753-9073
Quotation or reproduction in whole or part not permitted without express authorization.
2300 River Plaza
Drive, Sacramento, California 95833-3239 • (800) 753-9073
Quotation or
reproduction in whole or part not permitted without express authorization.
Vol. 30, No. 5, May 2001
IN THIS ISSUE
Requests
to Sign Labor Certification Form
OSHA Ergonomics Rule
Invalidated
Mexican Border Crossing Cards
Must be Replaced
UFW Win at Vinifera Certified
Senate to Take Up Minimum-Wage Increase
Sheepherders
to be Covered by Parts of IWC Order 14
Lay-Off/Reduction-in-Force Procedures
Changes in Immigration Laws?
Back Injury Prevention - Safety Sheet
Requests to Sign Labor Certification Form
Due to the immigration law enacted in December (see article Changes in Immigration Laws? on page 5), many agricultural employees are asking their employers to complete and sign U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Employment and Training Administration (ETA) Form 750A, "Labor Certification.
Also, some aliens want their employers to complete and submit for them Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. These requests pose several issues for employers.
Labor Certification Might be Filed Incorrectly: Labor Certifications may be filed under one of several provisions. For example, if the employee is filling a temporary agricultural position, then the Labor Certification must be filed under the H-2A provision.
Since the employee is the person filing the Labor Certification for you, the employer, the form might not be filed under the correct provision.
If it's filed under the H-2B provision, based on the above example, as a "Temporary Nonagricultural" position, then the employer could be subject to fines for applying under the incorrect rule.
Further, the Labor Certification must supply proof that the employer advertized the job and was unsuccessful in finding a resident to full the job. Did you satisfy that condition?
Alien Must Apply for Visa in Country of Origin: Technically, a Labor Certification is pursued by the employer. Also, the certification is for the purpose of allowing an alien in another country to come to the U.S. to fill the vacant job.
The only exception to this rule is the temporary provision-known as section 245(I)-passed by Congress last year that allows an alien to be in the U.S. while the Labor Certification is being processed. This exception ended April 30. As that date has now passed, an alien already in the U.S. is ineligible for the program, and a Labor Certification should not be submitted for the alien.
Signing a Labor Certification Guarantees Employment: The Labor Certification form asks the employer, by virtue of his signature, to certify these conditions of employment:
a. The employer has sufficient funds to pay the wage or salary offered the alien.
b. The wage offered is at least the prevailing wage, and the employer guarantees that, if a labor certification is granted, the wage paid to the alien when the alien starts work will equal or exceed the prevailing wage applicable when the alien starts work.
c. The wage offered is not based on commissions, bonuses, or other incentives, unless the employer guarantees a wage paid on a weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly basis.
d. The employer will be able to place the alien on the payroll by the date of the alien's proposed entrance into the U.S.
e. The job opportunity does not involve unlawful discrimination by race, creed, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, handicap, or citizenship.
f. The job opportunity is not: (1) available because the former occupant is on strike or is being locked out in the course of a labor dispute involving a work stoppage or (2) at issue in a labor dispute involving a work stoppage.
g. The job opportunity's terms, conditions and occupational environment are not contrary to Federal, State or local law.
h. The job opportunity has been and is clearly open to any qualified U.S. worker. If the Labor Certification is approved, can you guarantee that all of the above provisions have been or will be met?
Why Does the Employee Need a Labor Certification? An employee could conceivably have a lawful reason for seeking a Labor Certification, even though he is purportedly already eligible to work in the U.S. For example, perhaps he has only temporary work authorization that will soon expire.
However, an employer faced with a request to complete and sign a Labor Certification should question the need for the Labor Certification under the "reasonable person" principle. A "reasonable person" should ask himself: "If the employee is lawfully in the U.S., then why would he want to go though the trouble of pursuing a Labor Certification? Could it be he is in fact an undocumented alien?"
If the employee cannot provide a plausible reason for seeking a Labor Certification, then the employee's request may have caused the employer to gain constructive knowledge that the employee is not truly eligible to work in the U.S. In that case, the employer would need to discharge the employee, as an employer may not knowingly continue to employee a work-ineligible alien.
Confirming this (and going even further) are these blunt remarks by
an INS official in response to an inquiry by Steve Sutter, UC Cooperative Extension Area
Personnel Management Farm Advisor, about consequences for "sponsorship" of an
employee:
By "sponsorship" I assume that you mean filing a labor certification (ETA
750 with local SESA). It seems obvious that any employer sponsoring an alien worker
under 245i has become aware that he/she is unauthorized to work. If the employer
continues to employ [the employee] after that time, it is [doing so] knowingly,
implicating a higher level of fines. Be aware that filed labor certifications have
always represented a source of predication for audit of knowing hires or continuing to
employ.
I suppose that your readers know that agricultural work represents a very low preference
level for employment-based immigration purposes as well as that the standards are
difficult to meet. Many employers are not aware that they must agree to pay these
aliens what DOL determines to be the prevailing wage for this type of work as opposed to
what their business necessity dictates. Often, employers find that they can actually
get workers if they advertise at this prevailing wage. Even in cases where employers
are prepared to pay the prevailing wage, they find that labor certification takes 2 years
or longer and the I-140 perhaps 9 additional months to adjudicate (particularly given the
245i backlog). Thereafter, aliens can file for adjustment under 245i only once an
immigrant visa becomes available. Since only 10,000 immigrant visas are available per year
at this preference level, and those are apportioned among all countries of origin, the
backlog for a Mexican or Central American could be 10 years ...or longer. In the
meantime, these aliens are deportable (if discovered) and the employers susceptible to
penalties (if discovered). Perhaps most painful to these employers is the fact that
once these aliens adjust status to permanent residence, they are free agents and may
change employment!
This is not amnesty.
Al French, USDA Labor Affairs Coordinator, commented: "There doesn't seem to be any liability to sponsoring an employment-based petition as long as you are willing to offer the alien a full-time permanent job and go through the process to get the Department of Labor to certify that no U.S. worker is available for that job. But don't expect to employ the alien for several years as a sponsor, since you obviously know the alien is not a legal resident."
OSHA Ergonomics Rule Invalidated
On March 20, President Bush signed Senate Joint Resolution 6, disapproving the Ergonomic Protection Standard finalized by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration last November. Congress passed S.J. Res. 6 under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which lets that body invalidate rulemakings by passing a Joint Resolution of Disapproval.
American Farm Bureau Federation supported the passage of S.J. Res. 6 and remains concerned about any future regulatory actions by OSHA to regulate ergonomics in the workplace. While the CRA specifically prohibits agencies from re-proposing substantially the same regulation, OSHA may try to address the subject in a way that better addresses the concerns of the regulated community.
(Source: Bryan Little, American Farm Bureau Federation)
Mexican Border Crossing Cards Must be Replaced
The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the Department of State (DOS) warn that old Border Crossing Cards (BCCs) issued by the INS to Mexican citizens will expire Sept. 30.
A person with an old BCCs (Form I-186 or I-586) must replace it with the new "laser visa" card. The new card is both a BCC and a B1/B2 visitor's visa. Old BCCs must be replaced by Sept. 30.
The new laser visa-valid for 10 years--is a laminated, credit-card-style document. DOS consular staff in Mexico photograph and fingerprint applicants, adjudicate cases, and then e-mail the data to INS, which manages the contract under which the cards are produced.
When complete, the cards are returned to Mexico for delivery to the applicant by DOS.
In Mexico, visa information is available by calling 01-900-849-3737. In addition, visa information is available at no charge on the U.S. Embassy Internet homepage at www.usembassy.org.mx.
The California Agricultural Labor Relations Board certified the May 2000 election in which employees at Vinifera, Inc., voted to be represented by the United Farm Workers of America.
Collective bargaining for the company's 30 to 60 employees (employment varies by season) can now begin, said Antonio Fernandez, UFW contract administrator.
Senate to Take Up Minimum-Wage Increase
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) announced April 2 that he had reached an agreement with Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) to allow the Senate to consider an increase in the federal minimum wage.
Early indications are that the Republican "base" bill will increase the minimum wage by $1 per hour over two or three years and include tax-relief measures for small business and changes in federal labor law, such as letting employers give employees compensatory time off in lieu of premium pay for overtime work.
Democrats will seek a $1.50-per-hour hike over two or three years without the tax and labor provisions.
Senate Majority Whip Don Nickles (R-OK) indicated the Senate will vote on these bills before its Memorial Day recess.
The federal minimum wage is now $5.15 per hour. The California minimum wage, now $6.25 per hour, will rise to $6.75 per hour on Jan. 1, 2002.
(Contact: Bryan Little, bryanl@fb.org)
Sheepherders to be Covered by Parts of IWC Order 14
The California Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) voted April 24 to cover sheepherders under several sections of IWC Order No. 14-2001 (Agricultural Occupations), effective July 1. The IWC's action replaces Order 14's complete coverage exemption for those employees with only a partial exemption.
As of July 1, Order 14 sets a minimum wage for sheepherders of $1,050 per month. That amount will rise to $1,200 per month on July 1, 2002.
Sheepherders, whose numbers range from 300 to 800 statewide, have been exempted from state and federal minimum-wage provisions for a quarter-century. Nearly all are foreigners admitted under the H-2A temporary foreign agricultural worker program, which requires them to be paid $900 per month.
Further, they must receive housing, food, transportation and insurance benefits, which their employers claim add more than $700 a month to their total compensation packages.
In addition, the IWC added recordkeeping provisions for sheepherders, minimum monthly meal and lodging benefits, and requirements for regular mail service, access to radio or telephone communications and access to visitors. It also set standards for fixed-site housing provided to sheepherders.
But Chris Schneider, a lawyer with Central California Legal Services, which proposed a $2,000 monthly pay plan for sheepherders, said the decision "did nothing" because "nobody uses fixed-site housing."
Lay-Off/Reduction-in-Force Procedures
(First of two parts; conclusion in next month's issue)
Agricultural employers in California face severe water shortages and astronomical energy costs this year. Consequently, employees may need to be laid off .
A reduction in force (RIF) is painful not only for affected employees but also for employers who must implement one. If not handled correctly, a RIF may result in even more headaches (and liability) for the employer.
This article examines RIF issues and suggests ways in which RIF impacts may be reduced.
Employment At Will: Before a person can be discharged, the person must be hired. Take steps during the hiring process to confirm that employment is at will-that is, that it may, either with or without cause, be ended at any time by either the employer or employee.
Ensure that documents such as letters offering employment clearly state that the employment relationship is at will.
Also, ensure that no other document, such as a non-disclosure, non-competition or inventions agreement, or an employee manual or handbook, undermines the employment-at-will relationship. Fill any gap in this regard now-before implementing a RIF.
Rigid progressive-discipline policies and performance-evaluation procedures may limit your ability to sever an employment relationship as easily you might like.
Those types of policies and procedures often call for a time frame for the employee to show improvement, or set procedures for an employee to appeal a decision about an adverse employment action (including a layoff) before that action is taken.
To avoid being boxed in by those policies and procedures, reserve in them the right to implement discipline and other decisions affecting the employment relationship-including employment termination-on a case-by-case basis, without applying them. Those policies and procedures should also restate that the employment relationship is at-will.
Selection of Affected Employees/ Discrimination Issues: When considering whom to layoff, an employer must be mindful of the protected classes the affected employees may be in. The criteria used to select employees for the RIF is crucial. Improper criteria may violate anti-discrimination laws.
To avoid that problem, the safest course may be to rely solely on length of service (seniority) since it is a strictly objective and lawful criterion.
For obvious reasons, however, few employers do this because they want to retain the best employees, no matter their length of service.
Supervisors and managers need to select RIF candidates based on lawful business reasons-especially using factors supported by documentation. Factors used should be quantitatively measurable, such as attendance or production records.
Failure to have a defensible reason for who was selected can lead to lawsuits alleging the selection process was unlawfully discriminatory and unfairly hurt older employees or those in other protected classes.
Even with solid at-will employment relationships, an employer can still be found guilty of violating an anti-discrimination law by laying off a person within a protected class unless it can show the person was chosen for a lawful, non-discriminatory reason.
A few anti-discrimination laws to consider are Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
An employer should ensure not only that the reasons for the layoff are not unlawfully discriminatory, but also that the layoff does not disproportionately hurt a particular protected class of employees.
This sort of review is often most effectively performed with the guidance of legal counsel; in that way, most if not all of the documentation that is created falls within the attorney-client privilege. The privilege protects a company from being compelled to divulge potentially damaging documents should it later face layoff-related lawsuits.
Unionized Workforce: Where the employees are represented by a union, the employer has a duty to bargain over the effects of a full or partial closing of the business or mass layoff . (The decision itself, however, is not a mandatory subject of bargaining.)
Bargaining over the effects of the decision means the union and employer negotiate such matters as timing of the layoffs, payment of severance and continuation of health insurance.
Check for Skeletons in the Closet: Before laying off employees, an employer should be certain it complied with labor and non-labor-related laws. A disgruntled ex-employee who has knows about employer misdeeds can seek revenge by becoming a whistle blower.
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act: This federal law requires employers with 100 or more employees to provide to employees and governmental authorities 60 days' notice of a plant closing or mass layoff. A layoff of as few as 50 employees can trigger the WARN Act's notification provisions.
In some situations, an employer is excused from the requirement, as where it suffers unforeseen business losses that prevent it from giving 60 days' notice.
Employers should carefully assess their WARN obligations, as non-compliance can result in substantial liability.
Conveying the Bad News: Employers should develop a thoughtful, reliable plan for informing employees that they have been selected for a RIF.
Two employer representatives should meet with each affected employee. If any discussion ensues during this meeting about why the employee is being laid off, the reasons should be stated truthfully and accurately. A failure to do so may make it difficult to defend the decision if the employee were to challenge it later.
Further, as part of an exit interview, the employer should provide the laid-off employee with a copy of any non-competition, non-solicitation, confidentiality or inventions agreement the employee may have previously signed.
Also, check that the employee returns all employer property, including any keys and copies of confidential or proprietary information.
Taken together, these actions will go far toward protecting an employer's assets and deterring the sort of dispute that could result in litigation.
Final Wages: Discharged employees must be paid final wages (including any earned vacation pay) when employment ends.
(Sick-leave benefits, in contrast, usually are not wages because the employee generally must be sick to be eligible for them. But where employees are paid earned but unused "sick pay" at each year end, the benefits are treated as wages and must be included as final wages.)
Failure to pay all wages due an employee immediately upon discharge exposes the employer to a waiting-time penalty under Labor Code section 203. The penalty is one day's wages for each day the employee must wait to be paid (capped at 30 days of wages).
Severance Pay: Severance pay is not required by law. An employer should review its policies to determine if any promise of severance has been made.
Severance policies usually base the amount of pay on the employee's length of service. Employers without a set severance-pay policy sometimes offer severance pay to an employee in exchange for a liability release.
Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA): An adjunct to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), this federal law covers employers with at least 20 employees.
The OWBPA specifies conditions to be met where an employer seeks a waiver or release from an employee aged 40 years or more under an exit-incentive or employment-termination program.
An employer must provide affected employees with, among other things, information about the job titles and ages of all individuals eligible for the program.
The details of this requirement are complex and open to some interpretation. Failure to comply jeopardizes the validity of releases and exposes the employer to age-discrimination claims.
The OWBPA also provides that releases must be carefully worded for ADEA claims to be effectively waived.
Releases must be drafted so they are easily understood, to ensure employees waive ADEA claims knowingly and voluntarily.
To that end, a release of age-discrimination claims must contain language confirming, among other things, that the employee was advised to seek the advice of an attorney.
In the context of a layoff, a release should also expressly state that the employee has at least 45 days to consider the release and another 7 days to revoke it.
Compliance with these and other OWBPA requirements is essential, as no employer wants to pay an employee severance in exchange for a liability release, only to learn later that the release was defective.
(Source: Farm Labor Information Bulletin Voice of the Fields, published by La Cooperativa Campesina de California. Produced with the support of the Employment Development Department. Spanish version is on page 6.)
Have you heard these terms used lately: 245(i)? "New" or "Old" Amnesty? Visas for Spouses? "Temporary Worker" Program? April 30, 2001?
A series of recent events have generated many questions among the immigrant community: 1. On December21, 2000 certain immigration laws were modified; 2. On February 16, 2001 the Presidents of Mexico and the United States met and discussed the immigration issue; 3. Recently several differing voices have expressed their opinions on potential changes in immigration laws that could be introduced before the United States Congress.
The complexity of the subject when coupled with the enormous expectations awakened, has helped create the impression among many immigrants that the changes in Immigration policies may benefit a great number of them. Reality may be quite different from this perception.
Perhaps the point that needs to be stressed more emphatically is that, up to date, there is no new "amnesty" or legalization program opened to everybody nor any new special legalization program applicable to those living in the U.S. for more than 10 years or other time frames, neither the possibility to just pay a fine in exchange for legal residency.
The new possibilities opened by the December 21, 2000 law do not benefit anybody who was not already eligible under any of the previously existing programs or was not already part of a pending legal challenge. The changes in immigration laws are limited to easing the application process for some immigrants and waiving certain penalties for others already eligible under well defined categories.
The meeting between the presidents of Mexico and the United States, on the other hand, did not generate an immediate immigration accord or program. For the time being, the only announced decision aimed at the creation of a high level group to analyze the subject.
The legislative outlook does not offer additional clarity on the subject. Even though there is now a certain consensus on the need to develop new immigration policies. the opinions currently expressed are still diverging in several directions. Moreover, only one of the different camps expected to propose new legislation, has reached the point of introducing a bill in Congress.
For those who need to know more details on these subjects, this edition of Voice of the Fields includes an additional article with information available up to date. The outlook will most likely keep changing as new bills are introduced and discussed in Congress or as the governments of Mexico and the United States advance towards establishing any kind of agreement.
Immigration Law of December 21, 2000
The following article offers information on some changes in immigration laws introduced on December 21, 2000 and a warning about possible frauds against immigrants.
No New "Amnesty": First of all, it should be noted that the changes introduced in the immigration laws on December 21, 2000, will not benefit all immigrants. The new laws benefit only certain kinds of immigrants who comply with very clearly defined eligibility requirements. Later in this article you may find information on such requirements.
The changes in immigration laws did not create a new "amnesty", nor opened the door to new groups of immigrants that were not previously eligible or had tried to apply under the 1986 law (IRCA).
Beware of Fraud!: If any person or organization asks you for money to help you apply now for a "New Amnesty" but you did not try to apply back in 1987 or tells you that you should apply again even though your case was filed and denied in the past, most likely that person is trying to take advantage of you. Don't be too trusting. If you think somebody is trying to make you victim of a fraud, report it to the authorities or call 916-451-7151, or the state Department of Justice at 916-322-3360 or 1-800-952-5225.
On the other hand, if after reading this article you still think you can benefit from the modifications in immigration laws introduced on December21, 2000, and would like more information. you may call the agencies included in the "Immigration' Section of the Farm Workers Guide (1-800-232-4842) or call an immigration attorney. The INS Customer Service Hotline is: 1-800-375-5283.
Immigrant Groups Who Can Benefit from the December 21, 2000 law:
1. Some individuals who tried to apply for "Amnesty" in 1987 or 1988. are members of three class action suits: Catholic Social Services, Zambrano or LULAC, and obtained work authorization. (Late Amnesty).
2. Some undocumented immigrants with pending visa applications or those eligible to be petitioned by relatives or employers and under past regulations would have been forced to leave the country for their visa interview and possibly be subjected to the 3 or 10 year bar from entering the United States. (Section 245(i)).
3. Spouses and minor children of residents waiting more than three years after submitting an application for an immigrant visa. ("V" Visa).
4. Spouses and minor children of citizens still living abroad. ("K" Visa).
1. Late Amnesty: Includes some immigrants who tried to apply for amnesty in 1987 or 1988 but the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) refused to accept their applications or were otherwise discouraged from applying. Among them, individuals who are already members in any of three class action suits, CSS, Zambrano or LULAC, will now have the opportunity to apply for amnesty under the 1986 rules, provided they can prove they lived in the United States between 1982 and 1988 and fulfil all other eligibility requirements of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.
It should be noticed that this opportunity applies only to some individuals from whom the INS refused to accept or process their initial amnesty applications back in 1987 or 1988. You may not apply at this time if the INS did accept your application and did process it and your case was then denied.
Up to date, the INS has not published the rules under which this type of "New Amnesty" application may be filed.
2. Section 245(i): Applicable exclusively to undocumented immigrants eligible to be petitioned as residents by a relative or employer or already filed forms I-130, I-140 or Labor Certification petition and are now waiting for a decision. If they already live in the United States, thanks to the temporary reinstatement of Section 245(i) they will not have to leave the country to finalize the process and receive their visa and will not be subjected to the 3 or 10 year bar from returning to the United States, even if they entered without documents or overstayed their temporary visa.
The temporary restoration of Section 245(i) will allow members of this group to adjust their immigration status by filing an I-485 application and paying a $1,000 penalty to continue processing their case and request their green card within the United States.
It is important to understand that Section 245(i) does not grant legal residency to the applicant nor provide employment authorization. Section 245(i) simply allows you to avoid having to leave the country to adjust your status and be subjected to the 3 or 10 year bar from entering the United States. If your family or employer already filed forms I-130, I-140 or Labor Certification petition you don't need to do anything at this moment to be exempted from the 3 or 10 year bar.
If your family or employer have not requested an immigrant visa for you, and you want to benefit from the temporary exemption granted by Section 245(i), they must file an I-130, I-140 or Labor Certification petition before April 30, 2001.
If your family or employer files your petition application after April 30, 2000. most likely you will have to leave the country and travel to your own country for the green card interview and may be subjected to the 3 or 10 year bar from entering the United States.
It should be noted that this temporary opportunity to benefit from Section 245(i) applies only to individuals physically present in the United States on December 21, 2000.
Note: Not all immigrants need 245(i) protection. For example, if you have a valid temporary visa, in most cases you will not have to leave the country for your green card interview and will not have to pay the $1,000 penalty.
3. "V" Visa: The INS will soon issue the new "V" nonimmigrant status for spouses and minor children of lawful permanent residents waiting more than three years for an immigrant visa (requested before December 22, 2000.) Visa "V" recipients will be granted employment authorization and will be protected against deportation.
4. "K" Visa: The INS will soon extend the "K" visa classification, creating a visa for spouses of U.S. citizens and their minor children still living abroad.
These visas should be available late Spring.
If you need more information remember to call the community agencies listed in the "Immigration" section of the Farm Worker's Guide (1-800-232-4842), an immigration attorney or the INS (1-800-375-5283).
¿Cambios en Leyes de Inmigración?¿Cambios en Leyes de Inmigración?
¿Últimamente ha escuchado usarse estos términos?: ¿245(i)? " ¿'Nueva" o "Vieja" Amnistía? ¿Visas Para esposos ? ¿Programa "Bracero"? ¿30 de Abril del 2001?
Son muchas las preguntas quo han surgido a partir de tres acontecimientos: 1. El 21 do diciembre del 2000 fueron modificadas algunas leyes do inmigración; 2. El 16 de febrero del 2001 se reunieron los presidentes do Mexico y los Estados Unidos y trataron el tema migratorio: 3. Recientemente han surgido comentarios sobro algunas propuestas de cambios a leyes de inmigración que podrían presentarse ante el Congreso de los Estados Unidos.
La complejidad del tema, sumada a las enormes expectativas despertadas, han dejado Ia impresión entre muchos inmigrantes de que son muchas las personas que pueden beneficiarse con los cambios. La realidad puede ser muy diferente. Se han citado casos de reuniones informativas alas que asisten cien personas, pero solo 10 o 15 pueden beneficiarse de los cambios.
Quizás lo mas importante que debe resaltarse es que hasta Ia fecha no existe una nueva "amnistía" general ni ningún nuevo programa de legalización abierto a todo tipo de personas ni tampoco existe un programa especial para quienes hayan vivido mas de 10 años en este país ni para quienes simplemente quieran pagar algún tipo de multa a cambio de Ia residencia permanente.
Las nuevas posibilidades abiertas por los cambios en Ia ley de diciembre del 2000 no benefician a ninguna persona que no fuera ya elegible bajo programas anteriores o que no fuera parte de demandas legales pendientes. Lo único que han hecho los cambios hechos hasta Ia fecha es facilitar tramites o evitar penalidades a personas que ya cumplían con ciertos requisitos muy claros.
Por otra parte, el encuentro entre los presidentes de Mexico y los Estados Unidos no generó un nuevo acuerdo sobre inmigración. Por el momento solo se decidió formar grupos de trabajo de alto nivel para analizar el tema.
El panorama legislativo tampoco es claro. Aunque se ha creado un clima de consenso sobro la necesidad de nuevas políticas migratorias, las opiniones sobre como deben ser estas son aún divergentes. Además, de las diferentes tendencias que se espera tratarán de proponer leyes ante el Congreso, solamente una ha Ilegado al punto de presentar una propuesta de Ley.
Para quienes necesiten conocer más detalles sobro estos temas, en esta edición de La Voz del Campo publicamos otro artículo con información disponible hasta el momento. La situación puede cambiar en Ia medida en Ia que se presenten, discutan y aprueben nuevas propuestas de ley en el Congreso o los gobiernos de Mexico y los Estados Unidos Ileguen a formalizar acuerdos. Sin embargo, es imposible estimar en cuanto tiempo podría suceder esto. En próximas ediciones de La Voz del Campo continuaremos dando información sobre este tema de tanta importancia para Ia agricultura de California y Ia comunidad de trabajadores aerícolas.
Ley de Inmigración del 21 de Diciembre del 2000
A continuación presentamos información sobro los cambios de diciembre del año 2000 en las leyes de inmigración y una advertencia para evitar fraudes.
No Existe Una Nueva "Amnistía" En primer lugar es importante hacer notar quo los cambios en Ia Ley do Inmigración del 21 de Diciembre del año 2000 no beneficiaran a todo tipo de personas. Los únicos que pueden aprovechar los cambios pertenecen a grupos de inmigrantes que cumplen condiciones de elegibilidad muy claramente definidas y que describimos mas adelante.
Es decir, los cambios en las leyes migratorias no crearon una nueva "amnistía" ni abrieron las puertas a nuevos grupos de inmigrantes que no eran elegibles antes.
Cuidado con Fraudes Debe advertirse que si cualquier persona u organización le pide dinero por ayudarlo con los trámites de una "Nueva Amnistía" y usted no había tratado de tramitar amnestía desde 1987 o le dice que puede volver a solicitar amnestía aunque usted ya Ia hubiera tramitado antes y su caso hubiera sido negado, lo más probable es que Ia persona que le pide dinero esté tratando de abusar de usted. No se confíe. Si cree que lo quieren hacer víctima de un fraude, reportelo a las autoridades o llame al (916) 451-7151 o al Departamento de Justicia estatal al (916)322-3360 o 1-800-952-5225.
Por otra parte, Si después de leer este articulo usted cree que puede beneficiarse con los cambios de diciembre del 2000 en las leyes de inmigración y necesita más información, llame a las agencias incluidas en Ia sección "Inmigración" de Ia Guía del Campesino (1-800-232-4842), consulte un abogado experto en inmigración o llame a Ia línea de información del INS al 1-800-375-5283.
Grupos de Inmigrantes que Pueden Beneficiarse con los Cambios del 21 de Diciembre del 2000 :
1. Algunas personas que ya habían tratado de solicitar amnistía desde 1987 o 1988, forman parte de las demandas de Servicios Sociales Católicos, Zambrano o LULAC y obtuvieron permiso de trabajo. Amnistía Tardía).
2. Algunas personas sin documentos que tienen solicitudes de visa pendientes o pueden ser solicitados por familiares o empleadores y bajo las reglas anteriores hubieran tenido que salir de los Estados Unidos para su entrevista y posiblemente hubieran sido castigados durante 3 o 10 años sin poder regresar (Sección 245(i)).
3. Esposo(a) o hijos menores de residentes que ya han esperado más de tres años después de someter su petición de visa. (Visa "V").
4. Esposo(a) de ciudadanos que todavía viven fuera de los Estados Unidos. (Visa "K").
1. Amnistía Tardía: Incluyo algunas personas que trataron de solicitar amnistía desde 1987 y el Servicio de inmigración y Naturalización (Immigration and Naturalization Service-(SIN)) no les recibió o no les tramitó su solicitud desde aquellas fechas o fueron mal informados y desanimados. Algunas de estas personas que forman parte de las tres demandas legales de Catholic Social Services, Lulac o Zambrano, tendran oportunidad de' tramitar su amnistfa bajo las reglas de 1986, siempro y cuando puedan probar que vivieron en los Estados Unidos entre 1982 y 1988 y cumplen con los demás requisitos de Ia Ley de Inmigración de 1986 (IRCA).
Notese que esta oportunidad es solo para algunas personas a quienes el SIN no les quiso tramitar o recibir su solicitud desde aquella época. En esta ocasión ustod no puede volver a solicitar amnistía si el SIN si le recibió y si le tramitó su solicitud de amnistía y su caso fue negado.
Hasta la fecha, el SIN no ha anunciado los requisitos para participar en este programa.
2. Sección 245(i): Aplicable solo a inmigrantes indocumentados que ya eran elegibles para que sus familiares o un patrón las soliciten como residentes o ya estén esperando los resultados de Ia solicitud que hicieron sus familiares o patrones usando las formas 1-130, 1-140 o de certificación laboral. Si ya viven en los Estados Unidos, gracias a Ia Sección 245(i), podrán terminar sus trámites y recibir su "tarjeta verde" sin tener que salir de los EstadosUnidos y sin ser acreedores a los castigos do 3 o 1O años sin poder regresar al país, aún cuando hayan ingresado sin documentos o su visa ya haya expirado.
La restauración temporal de Ia llamada Sección 245(i) de Ia Ley de Inmigración les permitirá realizar el ajuste o cambio de situación migratoria sin tener que salir del país. siempre y cuando sometan una solicitud I-485 y paguen una multa de $1,000 dólares cuando llegue el momento de pedir su tarjeta verde.
Es importante comprender que Ia Sección 245(i) de Ia Ley no da autorización para permanecer en los Estados Unidos ni tampoco da permiso de trabajo; simplemente le evitará tener que salir del país para recibir Ia tarjeta verde y estar castigado duranto 3 o 10 años sin poder regresan. Si sus familiares o patrones ya sometieron su solicitud I-130, I-140 o de certificación laboral, en este momento usted no necesita hacer ningún trámite especial para estar exento del castigo de 3 o 10 años.
Si sus familiares o patrones todavía no han solicitado Ia tarjeta verde para usted y quiero beneficiarse de Ia exención temporal que otorga Ia Sección 245(i), es necesario que sometan su solicitud I-130, I-140 o de certificación laboral antes del 30 de abril del 2001.
Si sus familiares o patrones someten su solicitud después del 30 de abril del 2001, cuando le llegue el momento de pedir Ia "rarjeta verde" lo más probable es que usted tendrá que salir del país para tramitarla y pudría ser castigado con 3 o 10 años sin permiso de entrada.
Debe notarse que esta oportunidad de aprovechar la Sección 245(i) se aplica solo a personas ya presentes en los Estados Unidos el 21 de Diciembre del año 2000.
Nota: No todos los inmigrantes necesitan La protección de La Sección 245(i). Por ejemplo, si usted tiene visa temporal válida, lo más probable es que no será obligado a salir del país para continuar sus trámites y no necesitará pagar la mu Ira de $1,000 dólares.
3. Visa "V": El SIN expedirá pronto visas tipo "V" para esposos e hijos menores de residentes que solicitaron residencia legal antes del 22 de Diciembre del 2000 y han esperado más de tres años para obtener visa de inmigrante. Quienes obtengan una visa tipo "V" recibirán permiso de empleo y protección contra deportaciones.
4. Visa "K": El SIN ampliará Ia visa tipo "K". expidiendo visas para esposos de ciudadanos (y sus hijos menores) que todavía viven fuera de los Estados Unidos.
Estas visas estarán disponibles hasta fines de primavera.
Si necesita más información recuerde llamar a las agencias de Ia comunidad incluidas en Ia sección Inmigración de Ia Guía del Campesino (1.800-232-4842). consultar un abogado especialista en inmigración o llamar al INS al 1-800-375-5283.