Integrity Legal

The Wikileaks controversy has been captivating both the print media and the online media recently as it represents one of the most high profile examples of governmental information leakage in recent years. For those who are unfamiliar with the controversy a brief synopsis could be summed up by saying that the supposed Director of Wikileaks, Mr. Julian Assange, apparently came across approximately 250,000 leaked cables which were allegedly obtained by a military enlisted man in Iraq. The cables appear to contain information which was deemed “Secret” by officials of the US government.

The reason for this blog post is not to delve into the Wikileaks controversy itself, but the issue of extradition to the United States of America. To quote directly from a recent report from the Reuters News Agency:

“The risk we have always been concerned about is onward extradition to the United States and that seems to be increasingly serious and increasingly likely,” Assange told reporters in the sprawling grounds of the house in eastern England where he must spend Christmas and New Year.

Extradition to the USA is a serious proposition and it is this author’s opinion that there would be a strong likelihood that US officials may try to use extradition proceedings in an effort to bring Mr. Assange under the jurisdiction of the United States Courts. The news report went on to note:

Asked if he was facing a U.S. conspiracy, Assange told reporters: “I would say that there is a very aggressive investigation. A lot of face has been lost by some people, and some people have careers to make by pursuing famous cases.”

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has said his government was considering using the U.S. Espionage Act, under which it is illegal to obtain national defense information for the purpose of harming the United States, as well as other laws to prosecute the release of sensitive government information by WikiLeaks.

One key question for U.S. prosecutors is if they can determine whether Assange collaborated with the U.S. Army intelligence analyst who is suspected of leaking the classified material. Assange has denied any connection with the former U.S. Army Specialist Bradley Manning.

The issues noted above are not well settled under United States law. Many, both in the media and across the internet, have argued that Mr. Assange is more “freedom fighter” than “terrorist”. Meanwhile, groups with opposing views have called for Mr. Assange’s arrest on the grounds that he has committed the crime of espionage against the USA. In any case, it should be pointed out that only recently the United States government went to great lengths to extradite Viktor Bout, the so-called “Lord of War” or “Merchant of Death” from the Kingdom of Thailand. As noted in a previous posting, this was not the first instance of the United States going great lengths to bring a foreign national under its jurisdiction for the purpose of putting them on trial as can be evidenced from the arrest and subsequent incarceration of Manuel Noriega (Former quasi-dictator of Panama). However this case ultimately plays out one thing is clear: Mr. Assange is likely to remain the target of attentions from the US government for the foreseeable future.

For related information please see:  fugitive warrant or Arrest Warrant.

Tags: American Extradition, arrest warrant, criminal warrant, extradite, Extradition, Fugitive Warrant, international warrant, Julian Assange, Lord of War, Manuel Noriega, Merchant of Death, US Extradition, Viktor Bout, warrant, Wikileaks, Wikileaks scandal
Posted in Extradition, US Warrants | No Comments »

This blog was not very adept at staying on top of the issues surrounding the so-called DREAM Act which would have made a great deal of progress in dealing with issues pertaining to the children of undocumented immigrants wishing to regularize their status in the United States. Recently, it was reported the the DREAM Act legislation was effectively derailed through use of cloture in the United States Senate. The American Immigration Lawyers Association has been working diligently to try to assist in this bill’s passage, but to no avail. To quote directly from the website of AILA:

WASHINGTON, DC – The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) is disappointed that, after successful passage in the House, the Senate failed to advance the bipartisan DREAM Act this morning. The legislation did not garner enough votes to overcome a procedural hurdle, even though with 55 votes it had the support of a majority of the chamber’s lawmakers.

“It was with a heavy heart that I watched the DREAM Act deferred to yet another Congress. After the historic House victory and the tremendous outpouring of grassroots support for this legislation that would help deserving young people, today’s failed cloture vote is a wrong-headed dénouement,” said AILA President David Leopold who watched the legislative proceedings from Capitol Hill.

“It was sad to see some U.S. Senators putting politics before principles to vote no on cloture, thereby attaching their names to the wrong side of history. The DREAM Act did not pass today, but inevitably it will be law.”

The DREAM Act’s failure is disappointing for many, but there are those who still believe that the most pressing issue in the realm of United States Immigration is that of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). Passage of this legislation would alleviate the current restrictions placed upon same sex or LGBT bi-national couples who wish to be reunited in the USA. Under the provisions of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) same sex couples, even those lawfully married in a jurisdiction within the United States of America, cannot obtain the same family based visa benefits compared to their different sex counterparts. There are many who seem to feel somewhat frustrated by the fact that other legislation such as the DREAM Act has gained traction on Capitol Hill while legislation such as UAFA, or legislation which includes  UAFA-like language, has not garnered such substantial support. To quote from a posting posted prior to the DREAM Act’s Senate vote by Melanie Nathan on the Lezgetreal.com blog:

The US has yet to enact laws that will prevent gay and lesbian couples from having to exile to stay with foreign partners or from partners facing deportation.  The discrimination in the USA is based on the fact that same-sex partners are specifically excluded from Federal rights – such as the right to sponsor a spouse for a green card, because of the Defense of Marriage Act. (DOMA)

There are some who would argue that DOMA violates the notions of state sovereignty and individual civil liberties enshrined in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights by depriving US Immigration benefits to LGBT couples while granting them to different sex couples. Bearing this in mind, it ought to be noted that the States’ Rights arguments in favor of overturning DOMA became much more potent after some American States began recognizing and solemnizing same sex unions. There are some who feel that the final decision in this matter may ultimately be made by the US Supreme Court as cases are currently proceeding through the US judicial system which could overturn DOMA. It still remains to be seen whether DOMA will remain in force, be circumvented through use of UAFA, or be overturned by the US Courts. In any case, there are many who hope that some sort of solution arrives soon as many bi-national families remain separated as a result of DOMA’s continued enforcement.

For related information please see: LGBT Visa.

Tags: Bi-sexual Immigration Rights, Bi-sexual Visa Rights, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, DREAM Act, Gay Immigration Rights, Gay Visa Rights, Lesbian Immigration Rights, Lesbian Visa Rights, lgbt immigration, lgbt visa, Same Sex Bi-National Couple, Same Sex Bi-National Couples, same sex marriage visa, Transgender Immigration Rights, Transgender Visa Rights, uafa, UAFA News, Uniting American Families Act, US Immigration Rights LGBT, US Immigration Rights Same Sex Bi-national Couples
Posted in lgbt immigration, same sex visa | No Comments »

This blogger recently came upon a press release detailing the enactment of a final rule regarding E-2 visas for those wishing to invest and conduct business in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). The following is quoted directly from the official website of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS):

WASHINGTON—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today posted a final rule in the Federal Register that creates a nonimmigrant investor visa classification in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). The “E-2 CNMI Investor Visa” allows foreign long-term investors to reside in the CNMI through December 2014. Petitions for the E-2 CNMI Investor classification will be accepted beginning Jan. 18, 2011. Petitions received before Jan. 18, 2011, will be rejected.

Authorized by the Consolidated Natural Resources Act (CNRA) of 2008, the E-2 CNMI Investor Visa will be issued for two years, is renewable, and is valid only in the CNMI. The investor’s spouse and children may also apply for status as dependents of the investor.

For those who are unfamiliar with matters pertaining to the CNMI it should be noted that only recently was this jurisdiction folded into the group of jurisdictions which utilize the Department of Homeland Security to set and enforce immigration law and policy. In the past, the CNMI maintained relatively autonomous status when it came to immigration matters, but newly enacted rules have made CNMI Immigration rules very similar to those of the rest of the USA.

E-2 visas are very useful travel documents for those wish to go to the United States of America (or in this instance, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands) for business or investment purposes. Strictly speaking, E-2 visas are non-immigrant visas, but unlike the B-2 visa (US Tourist Visa) the E-2 is effectively treated as if it were a dual intent travel document in the same vein as an L-1 visa. One of the benefits of dual intent travel documents is that the applicant does not need to overcome the presumption of immigrant intent as set forth in section 214b of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act.

The E-2 visa is sometimes confused with the EB-5 visa. The United States EB-5 visa is an Immigrant Investor visa. Pursuant to the provisions of relevant American Immigration law the applicant for an EB-5 visa is accorded Lawful Permanent Resident status upon lawful admission to the United States in EB-5 status. It should be noted that the EB-5 visa process can be rather cumbersome as a petition must initially be filed with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). Furthermore, the EB-5 visa seeker must also undergo Consular Processing at a US Embassy, US Consulate, American Institute, or US Mission with appropriate Consular jurisdiction. Finally, the United States Customs and Border Protection Service (USCBP) is tasked with inspecting and making findings of admissibility when any foreign national requests admission to the USA. As stated above, upon lawful admission to the USA, an alien national in EB-5 status will be granted conditional lawful permanent residence in the USA.

For related information please see: E2 Visa Thailand.

Tags: 214(b), American Immigrant Investor Visa, CNMI, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, dual intent, E 2 Visa, E-2 Visa CNMI, E2 Visa, E2 Visa CNMI, EB-5 Visa, EB5 Visa, Immigrant Investor Visa, L-1 visa, L1 Visa, US Immigrant Investor Visa
Posted in American Institute Taiwan, Department of Homeland Security, E2 Visa, EB5 Visa, L1 Visa, US Consulate ChengDu, US Consulate Chennai, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate Guangzhou, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Hong Kong, US Consulate Hyderabad, US Consulate Kolkata, US Consulate Macau, US Consulate Mumbai, US Consulate Shanghai, US Consulate Shenyang, US Consulate Singapore, US Consulate Wuhan, US Embassy Australia, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Bangladesh, US Embassy Beijing, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy China, US Embassy Dhaka, US Embassy Fiji, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy India, US Embassy Indonesia, US Embassy Iraq, US Embassy Islamabad, US Embassy Jakarta, US Embassy Japan, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kiribati, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Laos, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Maldives, US Embassy Manila, US Embassy Mauritius, US Embassy Mongolia, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nauru, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy New Dehli, US Embassy New Zealand, US Embassy Pakistan, US Embassy Papua New Guinea, US Embassy Philippines, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Port Moresby, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Singapore, US Embassy South Korea, US Embassy Sri Lanka, US Embassy Suva, US Embassy Thailand, US Embassy Tokyo, US Embassy Tonga, US Embassy Tuvalu, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US State Department, US Tourist Visa, US Visa, US Visa and Immigration, USCBP, USCIS | No Comments »

ผู้ที่ติดตามอ่านบล็อกนี้อาจจะเห็นว่า ผู้เขียนได้นำเสนอข้อมูลเกี่ยวกับประเด็นทางกฎหมายและความร่วมมือในภูมิภาคต่างๆเช่น จีนและไต้หวัน เมื่อเร็วๆนี้กลายเป็นประเด็นที่น่าสนใจคือเซ็นลอว์ (Cenlaw)ซึ่งจีนแผ่นดินใหญ่วางมาตราการควบคุมการลงทุนในไต้หวัน อ้างโดยตรงจากเซ็นลอว์ (Cenlaw)

ทางการจีนควบคุมการลงทุนในไต้หวันโดยการลงทุนของแผ่นดินใหญ่

กระทรวงพาณิชย์ สำนักงานพัฒนาและปฏิรูปในไต้หวันโดยการลงทุนของแผ่นดินใหญ่นำเสนอประเด็นที่ว่า มาตรการสำหรับการลงทุนในไต้หวันโดยการลงทุนของแผ่นดินใหญ่ การชักจูงใจมาตรการนี้ แผ่นดินใหญ่มีความประสงค์ที่จะลงทุนในไต้หวันต้องเป็นไปตามเงื่อนไขดังนี้ 1.ควรจะมีบริษัทที่เป็นนิติบุคคลจดทะเบียนและประกอบกิจการในแผ่นดินใหญ่ 2. ควรจะมีพื้นฐานทางอุตสาหกรรม เงินทุน เทคโนโลยีและการจัดการเงินทุน นอกจากนี้การลงทุนในโครงการต่างๆในไต้หวัน นอกจากนี้ การลงทุนในโครงการในไต้หวัน สถานประกอบการในแผ่นดินใหญ่ต้องยื่นแบบฟอร์มต่อหน่วยงานพัฒนาและปฏิรูปที่ตั้งอยู่ในเขตนั้น แบบฟอร์มนั้นตรวจสอบในขั้นแรกโดยหน่วยงานพัฒนาและปฏิรูปในท้องถิ่นจากนั้นส่งต่อไปยังหน่วยงานพัฒนาและปฏิรูประดับชาติเพื่ออนุมัติ สำหรับการลงทุนภายใต้การควบคุมของรัฐบาลกลางอาจจะต้องยื่นโดยตรงต่อกระทรวงที่เกี่ยวกับการพัฒนาและปฏิรูปเพื่ออนุมัติการลงทุนในไต้หวัน  สำหรับธุรกิจในแผ่นดินใหญ่ที่จักตั้งในรูปแบบบริษัทและไม่ใช่บริษัทในไต้หวันเพื่อการลงทุนนั้นต้องได้รับการอนุมัติจากกระทรวงพาณิชย์

นโยบายนี้เป็นเรื่องที่น่าสนใจว่า หลายๆประเทศในเอเชียนั้นกำลังหาโอกาสในการลงทุนในตลาดและเขตอการลงทุนที่หลากหลาย ในขณะเดียวกันเจ้าหน้าที่รัฐที่อยู่ในเขตอำนาจที่แตกต่างกันต้องมีการปรับโครงสร้างหากมีการบังคับใช้นโยบาย

จีนแผ่นดินใหญ่และไต้หวันนั้นมีประวัติศาสตร์ที่แตกต่างกัน จากการบังคับของตลาดและปัจจัยทางเศรษฐกิจเป็นประเด็นที่สำคัญมากที่สุดซึ่งจะมีผลกระทบต่ออนาคตของสองประเทศนี้ นอกจากนี้ เป็นที่ปรากฏอย่างชัดเจนว่า การค้าในหลายภูมิภาคเพิ่มขึ้นอย่างต่อเนื่อง ดังนั้นจึงมีความต้องการกรอบการทำงานที่จะจัดการธุรกิจในบริบทของทั้งจีนแผ่นดินใหญ่และไต้หวัน หวังเป็นอย่างยิ่งว่า ความร่วมมือและความสัมพันธ์ทางเศรษฐกิจระหว่างแผ่นดินใหญ่และไต้หวันจะส่งผลดีต่อระบบเศรษฐกิจสำหรับทุกฝ่ายทั้งปัจจุบันและอนาคตต่อไป

To view this post in English please see: Business in China.

Tags: Business China, business in China, Cenlaw, China Business, Chinese Business, กฎหมายของบริษัทจีน, กฎหมายธุรกิจจีน, กฎหมายเกี่ยวกับการตั้งบริษัทจีน, การทำธุรกิจของจีน, การลงทุนในจีน, ธุรกิจในจีน, บริษัทในจีน
Posted in ธุรกิจในประเทศจีน | No Comments »

The United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service (USICE), an agency operating under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security, is tasked with enforcing the Immigration and Customs laws of the United States of America. This blogger recently came across a news release from the USICE which took note of the fact that an ICE investigation resulted in the conviction of a former FBI agent. To quote directly from the ICE.gov website:

DALLAS – A former special agent with the FBI in Dallas was sentenced on Wednesday by Chief U.S. District Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater to two years probation and ordered to pay an $18,000 fine, announced U.S. Attorney James T. Jacks of the Northern District of Texas.

The case was investigated by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), and the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General.

Ann Cox, 49, of Rockwall, Texas, pleaded guilty in September to the misdemeanor offense of unlawfully employing aliens.

According to documents filed in the case, from at least August 1997 until December 2008, Cox operated a Schlotzky’s Deli in Rockwall. While operating the deli franchise, she hired and employed individuals knowing that they were not either admitted for permanent residence in the U.S. or authorized to be employed. The documents name a total of six such individuals.

FBI Special Agent in Charge Robert E. Casey Jr. stated, “When FBI internal security procedures first detected the possibility that former Special Agent Cox may have committed this crime, I immediately referred this matter to our headquarters in Washington, D.C. Pursuant to established procedures within the Department of Justice, an investigation was then conducted by the Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, with the full cooperation of the FBI. While it is disappointing that an FBI special agent chose to break the law, it is important for citizens to understand that the FBI has an unwavering commitment to take appropriate action when transgressions are committed by its employees, the overwhelming majority of whom are above reproach in their professional and personal conduct.”

For those unfamiliar with matters pertaining to United States Immigration law, it should be pointed out the American authorities take immigration matters seriously and it is becoming ever more apparent that law enforcement agencies are stringently enforcing immigration regulations especially in the area of unlawful employment. As can be seen from the above quotation, intentionally employing undocumented immigrants is a serious matter that can lead to harsh legal penalties. For this reason, it is prudent to ascertain the lawful status of those being employed by a business in the United States in order to be certain that those employed in the US are either US Citizens, lawful permanent residents, or have been granted employment authorization by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS).

For related information please see: US visa fraud.

Tags: EAD, Employment Authorization, Illegal Immigrants, Immigration Fraud, ISCIS, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service, Unlawful employment in the USA, US Immigration Law, US Visa Fraud, USICE
Posted in Department of Homeland Security, US Visa, US Visa and Immigration, USCIS, USICE | No Comments »

Routinely, the administration of this blog posts the estimated processing times of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) Centers in an effort to provide clarity and information to those interested in the US Immigration process. It should be noted that for visa petitioners seeking a K-1 visa or an Immigrant visa such as a CR-1 visa, these estimated processing times do not take into account the need to process many visa applications through the National Visa Center (NVC) and possibly a US Embassy or US Consulate abroad. Below are the estimated processing times for the Texas Service Center, the Nebraska Service Center, the Vermont Service Center and the California Service Center as quoted from the official website of USCIS:

blah

blah

blah

The above estimates are simply that: estimates. However, these time frames do represent a realistic assessment of the probable time it would take to process a visa petition at USCIS. Again, most visa cases require further processing by the Department of State so the above estimates do not reflect the full duration of the US visa process in most cases.

For related information please see: K-1 Visa Thailand or K-3 Visa Thailand.

Tags: Advance Parole Processing Time, CR-1 Visa Processing Time, CR1 Visa Process, EB-5 visa process, EB-5 Visa Processing Time, IR-1 Visa Processing Time, IR1 Visa Process, K-1 Visa Processing Time, K-3 Visa Processing Time, K1 Visa Process, K3 Visa Process, L-1 Visa Processing Time, L1 Visa Process, National Visa Center, NVC, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, US Consulate, US Embassy, USCIS, USCIS Processing Times
Posted in American Institute Taiwan, CR1 Visa, Department of Homeland Security, EB5 Visa, Fiance Visa Thailand, IR1 Visa, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K2 Visa, K2 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, L1 Visa, National Visa Center, US Consulate ChengDu, US Consulate Chennai, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate Guangzhou, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Hong Kong, US Consulate Hyderabad, US Consulate Kolkata, US Consulate Macau, US Consulate Mumbai, US Consulate Shanghai, US Consulate Shenyang, US Consulate Singapore, US Consulate Wuhan, US Embassy Australia, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Bangladesh, US Embassy Beijing, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy China, US Embassy Dhaka, US Embassy Fiji, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy India, US Embassy Indonesia, US Embassy Iraq, US Embassy Islamabad, US Embassy Jakarta, US Embassy Japan, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kiribati, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Laos, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Maldives, US Embassy Manila, US Embassy Mauritius, US Embassy Mongolia, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nauru, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy New Dehli, US Embassy New Zealand, US Embassy Pakistan, US Embassy Papua New Guinea, US Embassy Philippines, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Port Moresby, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Singapore, US Embassy South Korea, US Embassy Sri Lanka, US Embassy Suva, US Embassy Thailand, US Embassy Tokyo, US Embassy Tonga, US Embassy Tuvalu, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US State Department, US Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | No Comments »

Those who read this blog may likely have noticed that the issue of Thai immigration is a frequent topic of discussion. Recently, this author came upon an interesting announcement regarding the issuance of Thai reentry permits at the Suvarnabhumi International Airport in Bangkok, Thailand. The following is quoted directly from the official website of Suvarnabhumi International Airport:

In a previous posting on this blog, the administration pondered the prospect of Thai reentry permits and whether they would ever again be available at the airport as opposed to the Royal Thai Immigration Headquarters at Chaeng Wattana. It would appear that from this point onwards, Thai reentry permits will be available to departing foreign nationals at the airport.

For those who are unfamiliar with the protocols and rules associated with Thai immigration, anyone present in the Kingdom of Thailand on a Thai visa must obtain a reentry permit prior to leaving the Kingdom of Thailand. Those who fail to obtain a Thai reentry permit prior to departing Thailand may lose their Thai visa status upon departure. For this reason, reentry permits should be obtained by anyone in Thai visa status who wishes to return to Thailand. A frequently asked question in this vein is: do I need a reentry permit if I am present in the Kingdom on a visa exemption? The short answer: no. Those who enter the country on a Thailand visa exemption cannot obtain a reentry permit as they are not technically in possession of a valid Thai visa. Those present in the Kingdom of Thailand on a Thai visa extension are required to obtain a Thai reentry permit prior to departure lest the foreign national fall out of status entirely upon departing Thailand. The same can be said for those who are present in Thailand with lawful permanent residence. A Permanent Resident in Thailand must receive authorization to leave the country whilst simultaneously maintaining lawful status in the Kingdom or else face the prospect of falling entirely out of status upon departure.

Those who are present in the Kingdom of Thailand on a multiple entry one year Thai visa should not need to obtain a Thai reentry permit when departing the Kingdom, but those with a multiple entry visa are generally required to depart the Kingdom at least every 90 days in order to maintain lawful status.

Fore related information please see: Thailand business visa or Thai Work Permit.

Tags: Multiple Entry Thai Visa, Multiple Entry Thailand Visa, One Year Thai Visa, One Year Thailand Visa, Reentry Permit, Suvarnabhumi, Suvarnabhumi International Airport, Thai B Visa, Thai Business Visa, Thai Immigration, Thai O Visa, Thai permanent residence, Thai Reentry Permit, Thai Retirement Visa, Thai Visa, Thai Visa Extension, Thai Visas, Thai Work Permit, Thailand B Visa, Thailand Business Visa, Thailand ED Visa, Thailand Education Visa, Thailand Immigration, Thailand o visa, Thailand Permanent Residence, Thailand Reentry Permit, Thailand Retirement Visa, Thailand Visa, Thailand visa extension, Thailand Visas
Posted in News, Thailand Business, Thailand Visa, Thailand Work Permit | No Comments »

This blogger recently cam across an interesting report from the Department of Homeland Security. As discussed in previous postings on this blog, the Southwestern border of the USA has been the scene of increasing efforts by American State, Federal, and local authorities to stem the flow of undocumented immigrants to the USA. To quote directly from the report:

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano today held a quarterly conference call with sheriffs and police chiefs from 30 jurisdictions along the Southwest border to discuss the Department’s ongoing support for state and local law enforcement in their efforts to keep their communities safe from violence and other threats.

It would appear the the Department of Homeland Security is working more closely with local authorities in order to increase security along the United States-Mexican border. The aforementioned report went on to further note:

Since January 2009, DHS has committed unprecedented resources along the Southwest border. The Border Patrol is better staffed today than at any time in its 86-year history, having doubled the number of agents from approximately 10,000 in 2004 to more than 20,500 today. In addition, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has doubled the number of personnel assigned to Border Enforcement Security Task Forces; increased the number of intelligence analysts working along the U.S.-Mexico border; quintupled deployments of Border Liaison Officers; and begun screening 100 percent of southbound rail shipments for illegal weapons, drugs, and cash—for the first time ever.

Secretary Napolitano also highlighted critical programs that assist state and local law enforcement in making their communities safer. In July, DHS announced more than $47 million in fiscal year 2010 Operation Stonegarden grants for Southwest border states. Based on risk, cross-border traffic and border-related threat intelligence, 82 percent of 2009 and 2010 Operation Stonegarden funds went to Southwest border states—up from 59 percent in 2008.

DHS has also expanded the Secure Communities initiative—which uses biometric information and services to identify and remove criminal aliens in state prisons and local jails—from 14 jurisdictions in 2008 to more than 800 today, including all jurisdictions along the Southwest border.

The Department of Homeland Security’s role has increased dramatically along the Southern border of the USA. In a previous blog post this author noted that the Department of Homeland Security’s United States Customs and Border Protection Service (USCBP) has been using sophisticated technology such as iris scanners in an effort to bio-metrically monitor travelers crossing the border between the USA and Mexico. Pursuant to legislation passed in the 1990s Customs and Border Protection has the authority to place foreign individuals into expedited removal proceedings which can result in a bar to admission for the foreign national for 5 years after the proceedings have concluded.

The situation along the Southern US border may become more tense as inflows of undocumented immigrants are likely to continue necessitating further action by authorities such as USCBP and local law enforcement. It is hoped that this problem can be dealt with in such a way that it does the least amount of harm to all concerned.

Fore related information please see: I-601 waiver or US Visa Denial.

Tags: American Immigration, American Visa, Border Security, Department of Homeland Security, illegal immigration, immigration law, Southwestern Border, Undocumented Immigration, United States Customs and Border Protection, Unlawful Immigration, US-Mexican Border, USCBP, Visa Law
Posted in Department of Homeland Security, I-601 Waiver, USCBP | No Comments »

Those who read this blog may have taken note of previous postings which discussed recent events occurring in the realm of American online gaming regulation. Recently, this administrator read a posting on casinogamblingweb.com by Terry Goodwin. To quote directly from the posting:

[Senator Harry] Reid shocked many in the gaming industry late last week when he revealed that he was supporting a bill that would regulate online poker in the US. Each state would be able to opt out of the legislation, but clearly the goal for Reid was to help Nevada gaming companies with existing casinos.

Senator Reid’s support could prove to be essential to passage of online gaming regulation legislation. However, not all seem enthusiastic about Mr. Ried’s proposed legislation:

As the details of the bill have emerged, online players have become more weary of Reid’s motives. One of the more interesting stipulations surrounds the possibility that all online poker operators seeking a license would have to halt their services to US customers for a period of fifteen consecutive months once the legislation is finalized and passed.

The issue of gaming in general can be controversial in the United States and around the globe, but the issues surrounding online gaming bring to light all sorts of legal and policy issues as Larry Rutherford noted in his article also on casinogamblingweb.com:

University of Illinois Business Professor and longtime opponent of online gambling regulations in the US John Kindt has again made statements about the issue of late…

Apparently this professor advocates strongly against online gaming. Many opponents to gaming legislation cite the problems which can arise as a result of the spread of gaming. That said, Rutherford’s posting pointed out that online gaming is becoming increasingly prevalent:

Senator Harry Reid and Representative Barney Frank are both pursuing online gambling legislation that would regulate the industry. The lawmakers take the opposite position of Kindt, understanding that Internet gambling is already a big part of society in the US….

One facet of the online gaming debate that many feel is often overlooked in the overall discussion of the various aspects of the issue is the economic argument in favor of online gaming. As Rutherford’s piece went on to note further:

Online gambling would only help the economy recover with the thousands of jobs regulations would create. Millions of dollars in tax revenue that is currently going out of the US would also stay within the borders. Instead of paying companies in other countries, the millions of online gamblers would be pumping money into US-based companies that pay taxes and spend money in the country.

In addition to the revenue and jobs, online gambling regulations would also place spending limits on Internet gamblers, something that currently does not exist in full regulation. Problem gambling is addressed in Representative Frank’s online gambling bill, and almost certainly would be included in any legislation proposal by Senator Reid passed as an amendment to the tax cuts bill.

Although no one can foresee what the overall impact of this legislation could be. There are many who feel that properly regulated online gaming in the United States would be a significant benefit to the American economy as jobs would be created to deal with what appears to be substantial demand for services both directly and indirectly related to gaming.

Tags: internet casino, Internet Gambling, Internet Gambling Law, Internet Gambling Lawyer, Internet Gambling Regulation, Internet Gaming, internet poker, online casino, Online Gambling, Online Gaming, Online Gaming Law, Online Gaming Lawyer, online poker, Onling Gaming Regulation, Senator Harry Reid
Posted in Gaming Law, Online Gaming | No Comments »

Since recent economic developments have caused turmoil in the American economy, it is this blogger’s opinion that few are willing to look at the positive aspects of the United States economy. As a business platform the United States of America is still one of the best countries to host businesses conducting trade, providing services, or conducting manufacturing. To quote directly from another website, locationusa.com, which discusses issues surrounding the United States economy at length:

U.S. affiliates of foreign companies employ more than five million U.S. workers and support millions more indirectly. There is no question that investing in the United States brings with it many advantages. With a population of more than 300 million and the largest economy in the world, the United States is the most important market for any global company. The American work force ranks as one of the best educated, most productive, and most innovative in the world. As a place to do business, the United States offers a predictable and transparent legal system, outstanding infrastructure, and access to the world’s most lucrative consumer market.

Although it may seem counter-intuitive at first blush, legal immigration has a tremendous positive impact upon local economies. This is especially true where immigrants are investing in the United States economy or setting up a business in the USA. One of the primary ways in which immigrants can be beneficial to the USA is through foreign direct investment. Any money invested in the United States could be viewed as a net positive if one were looking at global competition for foreign direct investment as a “zero sum” game. Furthermore, investment in the USA creates jobs. As stated above, the United States labor market is one of the most sophisticated and efficient on the planet. This is one of the many reasons why foreign companies set up offices in the United States as American Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents are some of the best educated and best equipped to handle complex and difficult tasks. Also, the infrastructure of the United States is ranked high compared to other nations around the globe. In short, the United States of America is an optimal location to engage in business activity aimed at attracting customers from both the USA, which has a very dynamic consumer market, and the world at large.

The EB-5 Immigrant Investor visa is a very useful travel document for those who wish to both invest and work in the United States. This visa is a highly sought after travel document since it provides the bearer with lawful permanent residence upon lawful admission to the USA at a Port of Entry. Those interested in obtaining an EB-5 Visa should conduct research and take note of the fact that Immigrant Investors wishing to enjoy an EB5 visa should be willing to invest a minimum of five hundred thousand (500,000) United States dollars. Those seeking to invest in an “un-targeted” EB-5 program should note that such an investment must generally be at least one million (1,000,000) US dollars.

Those who wish to invest in a small business in the United States may find the the US E-2 visa beneficial as this travel document may be used to travel to the USA to oversee an enterprise located stateside. It should be noted that the E-2 is a non-immigrant visa and therefore, those wishing to immigrate to the USA to reside may not be well served by an E-2 visa.

For related information please see: EB-5 Visa China or EB-5 Visa Thailand.

Tags: American Immigration, American Visa, E 2 Visa, E2 Visa, EB-5 Visa, EB-5 Visa China, EB-5 Visa Thailand, EB-5 Visas, EB5 Visa, EB5 Visa China, EB5 Visa Thailand, Immigrant Investment Visa, Immigrant Investor Visa, US Immigration, US Visa
Posted in American Institute Taiwan, E1 visa, E2 Visa, EB5 Visa, US Consulate ChengDu, US Consulate Chennai, US Consulate Chiang Mai, US Consulate Guangzhou, US Consulate HCMC, US Consulate Hong Kong, US Consulate Hyderabad, US Consulate Kolkata, US Consulate Macau, US Consulate Mumbai, US Consulate Shanghai, US Consulate Shenyang, US Consulate Singapore, US Consulate Wuhan, US Embassy Australia, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Bangladesh, US Embassy Beijing, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Cambodia, US Embassy China, US Embassy Dhaka, US Embassy Fiji, US Embassy Hanoi, US Embassy India, US Embassy Indonesia, US Embassy Iraq, US Embassy Islamabad, US Embassy Jakarta, US Embassy Japan, US Embassy Kathmandu, US Embassy Kiribati, US Embassy Kuala Lumpur, US Embassy Laos, US Embassy Malaysia, US Embassy Maldives, US Embassy Manila, US Embassy Mauritius, US Embassy Mongolia, US Embassy Myanmar, US Embassy Nauru, US Embassy Nepal, US Embassy New Dehli, US Embassy New Zealand, US Embassy Pakistan, US Embassy Papua New Guinea, US Embassy Philippines, US Embassy Phnom Phen, US Embassy Port Moresby, US Embassy Rangoon, US Embassy Singapore, US Embassy South Korea, US Embassy Sri Lanka, US Embassy Suva, US Embassy Thailand, US Embassy Tokyo, US Embassy Tonga, US Embassy Tuvalu, US Embassy Vietnam, US Embassy Yangon, US Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand | No Comments »