blog-hdr.gif

Integrity Legal

Archive for the ‘Upcoming Legislation’ Category

1st September 2009

Speculation abounds as rumors circulate about possible price increases for Thai work permits. A common misunderstanding regarding Thai law is that the right to work is built into a foreigner’s Thai visa. This misconception is particularly acute with regard to the Thailand Business Visa. It is easy to believe that a business visa would entitle the holder to work in the country, but in Thailand, as in the United States on a B1 visa, foreign nationals are only allowed to work after obtaining Thai Ministry of Labour approval in the form of a Thai work permit.

The Nation, in conjunction with Thaivisa.com is reporting on the matter, to quote their report:

“The Phuket Gazette has learned that recent rumors of substantial increases in work permit fees may be well-founded. Discussions are underway in the Department of Employment that could once again lead to massive hikes in these annual fees.”

This situation appears quite alarming to expats in Thailand because within recent memory another dramatic fee increase caused consternation due to the enormity of the difference in cost before and after the fee increase took effect. To quote further from the Thaivisa.com website:

“The last hike in work permit fees occurred in September 2002, delivering an impressive 200% hike, an event that triggered lively and colorful comments on ThaiVisa.Com, host to Thailand’s largest English-language Web forum. Some recent comments in that forum, albeit from sources undisclosed and/or unofficial, foreshadow this month’s hike as likely to be something well over 100%.”

Six thousand Thai baht is only roughly equivalent to approximately two hundred United States dollars and compared to the Immigration system in the United States, United Kingdom, or many countries in the European Union the fees are relatively low when one takes into account the fact that the bearer of a work permit is given the right to work in a foreign country. Even keeping these factors in mind, an increase of one hundred percent is still considerable and substantial, particularly for the small Thai business employing foreigners or for the expat living in Thailand and running a small business.

One explanation for this fee increase could be economic. Although not as hard hit by the worldwide economic crisis, Thailand still has had flat numbers in tourism and the economy is sagging. Further compounding the problem is the prospect of another less-than-optimal high season and the specter of new demonstrations causing foreign investment to flee in search of economies with more stable government. These factors could explain why this fee increase is being brought forward at this time as protectionist attitudes and the need for government revenues increases. It is uncertain if or when the fee increase will occur, but one thing is certain: some foreigners will always want to work in Thailand and they will probably always have to pay some sort of government fee for the privilege.

more Comments: 04

28th August 2009

As many people around the globe have no doubt heard, the venerable Senator Kennedy recently passed away. We on this blog would like to offer our heartfelt condolences to his family as they mourn his death. The loss of Senator Kennedy is something of a setback for the immigrant rights movement as he was a staunch supporter of many initiatives aimed at helping those who had immigrated to the United States of America. To quote an email sent out by the American Immigration Law Foundation:

Senator Kennedy was the driving force behind every significant piece of immigration legislation over the past 40-plus years. Most recently, Senator Kennedy co-authored a comprehensive immigration reform bill which failed to pass in 2007. Upon its defeat Senator Kennedy said, “Immigration reform is an opportunity to be true to our ideals as a nation. Our Declaration of Independence announces that all of us are created equal. Today, we failed to live up to that declaration for millions of men and women who live, work, and worship beside us. But our ideals are too strong to be held back for long.”

With an impending debate upon the future course of American Immigration policy one wonders if the loss of Mr. Kennedy will have an impact upon the ultimate outcome of Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

Senator Kennedy was an ardent defender of same sex couples. Senator Kennedy took many stands in support of the Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Trans gender (LGBT) community.To quote another website:

“In the 1990′s Kennedy became the clear Senate leader in the fight to end discrimination against members of the LGBT community, and to fund programs for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment. He was also one of the very few senators to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).”

As we have mentioned previously on this blog, one of the interesting issues involved in the current debate about US Immigration Reform is that of same sex couples who are currently barred from reuniting with loved ones due to the fact that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) precludes Federal acknowledgment of their relationship. This means that a same sex couple who validly marries  and tries to obtain Immigration benefits will be denied because DOMA does not recognize their marriage, even if the marriage occurred in a US state which recognizes same sex marriage (like Massachusetts). Further, under current legislation the same sex couple cannot obtain a K1 visa if the underlying intention is to marry in the US.

Mr. Kennedy’s death is sad, but his spirit lives on in the continued debates about Immigration reform.

more Comments: 04

24th August 2009

Last week, United States President Barack Obama stated that reform of the US Immigration system is an important issue and one that will not be placed on the “backburner.” In the United States Congress and Senate, the Immigration debate is coming to the forefront with two proposed bills being brought to the floor in the next session. One proposed bill would stiffen enforcement and security measures with regard to illegal immigrants while creating more opportunities for immigrants to enter the United States legally.

The publication Businessweek reports that another proposed bill would, “limit the granting of H-1Bs, visas that are especially popular among U.S. tech companies like Microsoft as well as Indian IT services outsourcers like Infosys and Wipro.”

This same article makes note of the major contributions that many immigrant groups have made to the economy of the United States of America. There is a pervasive belief that only immigrant groups in the distant past have made a substantial positive impact upon the United States economy. As Businessweek points out, the Technology sector of the American economy has been greatly enhanced by immigrants to the United States as companies such as Google, Coca Cola, Pepsi, Motorola, and Berkshire Hathaway were either founded by, or currently managed by members of the American immigrant community.

An interesting aspect of the current immigration debate is the fact that it will occur at a time of decreased immigration to the USA. To further quote Businessweek:

“Ironically, the latest immigration fight will take place at a time when the U.S. has become a less attractive destination for many immigrants. Because of the recession, there’s less demand for low-cost labor. But the U.S. is also turning out to be less attractive for highly educated workers, too.”

As the People’s Republic of China and Asia generally becomes a more important region of the global economy, it stands to reason that more immigrants will be drawn to that continent in order to seek business opportunities. Hopefully, this fact will be taken into account when legislation regarding comprehensive immigration reform is drafted because in order to remain on the cutting edge of innovation the United States must continue to be viewed as the “land of opportunity,” by talented and ambitious prospective immigrants. Ideally, the proposed legislation to reform the American Immigration system will contain provisions that will make it easier for highly educated and highly skilled foreign labor to enter the United States.

For related information please see:

K1 visa

K3 visa

more Comments: 04

18th August 2009

As President Obama appears to be retreating from campaign promises for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, there are new reports emerging that Immigration may be a boon to the economy of the United States of America.

The Wall Street Journal’s website from August 18, 2009 is quoted as stating:

“A new study published by the Cato Institute finds that the focus on repelling immigrant labor does more harm than good to the U.S. economy. “Increased enforcement and reduced low-skilled immigration have a significant negative impact on the income of U.S. households,” write Peter Dixon and Maureen Rimmer, the study’s authors. “In contrast, legalization of low-skilled immigrant workers would yield significant income gains for American workers and households.” A program that allowed more low-skilled foreigners to enter the U.S. workforce lawfully would put smugglers and document-forgers out of business, explain the authors. “It would also allow immigrants to have higher productivity and create more openings for Americans in higher-skilled occupations.”

Though somewhat counter intuitive, the tightening of security measures at United States borders may be helping to keep the American economy in the doldrums.

Of further interest in the Wall Street Journal’s article regards Mr. Obama’s backpedaling on the major issues involving American Immigration. To further quote the Wall Street Journal online:

“President Obama continues his quiet retreat from a campaign pledge to make comprehensive immigration reform “a top priority in my first year as President.” Following a summit meeting in Guadalajara last week with the leaders of Mexico and Canada, Mr. Obama said that an immigration overhaul will have to wait until next year.”

In the next Congressional session it is hoped that Comprehensive Immigration Reform will be dealt with and the current problems associated with large numbers of illegal aliens in the United States will finally be put to rest. Of further concern to some immigration equality advocates  is the issue of US family based visas for couples of the same sex. Currently the Defense of Marriage Act bars the Federal government from granting US Immigration benefits based upon a same sex marriage or an intent to enter into a same sex marriage.

However, these issues are resolved the underlying issue is one of decisiveness. The current Presidential Administration needs to begin making some difficult choices with regard to immigration. Many of these choices will not be well received by all segments of the United States population. Nonetheless, definitive action needs to be taken as many people in the United States continue to live in a kind of limbo and many couples remain separated from their loved ones abroad.

more Comments: 04

17th August 2009

There appears to be growing frustration among many groups who supported President Barack Obama when he was campaigning for the White House. During his bid for the Presidency, Mr. Obama was quite vocal about the need to reform the current immigration system in the United States of America. However, as Mr. Obama’s Presidency has begun as a very busy administration, Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) has seemed to have been shunted to the “back burner.”

In a recent web posting entitled, “Obama Pushes Immigration Reform to 2010, Jokes About Being Called ‘an Illegal Immigrant’” the author, Diego Graglia,wrote:

“Obama added he can’t get immigration reform passed on his own. “It’s important that people realize that things don’t happen because the President snaps his fingers. I can’t do all this by myself,” he said. He asked that grassroots groups continue to organize and mobilize for reform and that members of Congress face the political risks involved.”

Although it is correct that the President cannot solve all political problems by snapping his fingers, this comment does beg the question: then what can he do? Certainly it takes more than simply snapping one’s fingers, but at the same time the President wields a great deal of hard, soft, indirect legislative, and overt executive power. Certainly, he of all people could at least attempt to bring about some sort of compromise measure that would not require as much political capital.

At the same time, there are those who argue that Obama has too many current problems to deal with and Immigration reform is an issue that should be dealt with when the President has enough time to devote his full attention to this incredibly important issue. With the economy only beginning to show signs of recovery and foreign commitments to sort out, the President has many urgent and pressing problems to deal with. However, many have argued that Immigration reforms are more important as Immigration problems have an impact upon both the domestic economy and foreign policy.

An issue that is increasingly becoming entangled with Comprehensive Immigration Reform is that of US Immigration benefits for same sex couples. There are some who believe that United States Immigration benefits for same sex bi-national couples will likely be dealt with in provisions of CIR legislation. It is too soon to tell, but it seems logical that if Comprehensive Immigration Reform is considered to be a secondary issue, then Immigration benefits for same-sex couples may get short shrift as well, at least for now.

more Comments: 04

29th July 2009

The Nation and Thai Visa are reporting some interesting developments with regard to Thailand’s Legal environment. First off, the all-but-abandoned Thailand Elite Card program is apparently still alive, but on life support. To quote the Nation via ThaiVisa:

“In November 2003, Mr Thaksin proudly presented 80 gold Thailand Elite cards to international VIPs and eminent people, including Japanese trade chiefs and US banking and financial supremos. The cards promised fast-tracked immigration, discounts at luxury resorts and golf courses, and many other perks. The optimistic estimates to attract the world’s wealthy were mind-boggling; a million subscribers to generate a trillion baht in revenue. But early signs were not encouraging. After four months, a meagre 400 memberships had been sold, barely a dent in the 100,000 target for the first year of operation. Panicky officials talked of targeting China’s nouveau riche, and predicted they would attract 30,000 Chinese within 12 months. But six years later, the total number of members is a risible 2,570, and the Thailand Privilege Card Company (TPC), set up by the Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT), to run the scheme has a crippling net loss of 1.4 billion baht.”

As stated previously on this blog, the current government of Thailand has opted not to continue the Thai Immigration benefits accorded to Elite Card holders. As a result, the central pillar of the scheme has been toppled resulting in nearly no demand for the card. It will be interesting to see what the ultimate fate of the Elite Card will be, but at this time it appears that card holders are attempting to get as many benefits out of the card as possible in order to offset the cost of acquiring it.

In further reports from the Nation and ThaiVisa, it would appear that the Thai government is looking to crack down on Karaoke bars in Thailand, “The [Thai] Cabinet has approved new regulations that prohibit karaoke parlours from providing drinking or singing partners to customers, with their business licences being revoked if they do.” It will be interesting to see if these provisions will be stringently enforced and, if so, what effect this legislation will have upon the already crippled Thai tourism industry.

The government also is proposing regulations to limit the amount of time that Thai children can utilize computer gaming facilities. This seems like an attempt to reign in children who play computer games virtually non-stop. Finally, a proposed film rating system. The system would impose rating categories upon Thai films. The categories would span the spectrum from films which would be “encouraged” to those which would be “banned.”

(This post is merely opinion, no attorney-client relationship is created from reading this piece.)

more Comments: 04

10th July 2009

Massachusetts  fired the opening salvo in what appears to be a major battle for same sex immigration rights. The Commonwealth is suing the Federal government of the United States. Specifically repugnant to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.  The first pillar of the case brought against the USA is based upon the idea that the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) deny those same sex couples married in the Commonwealth the “essential rights and protections” accorded to different sex couples.

A further, and in my opinion more compelling, argument deals with the issues of state versus federal sovereignty. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts asserts that the United States government does not have the right to dictate to the states about what will and will not constitute marriage. By refusing to acknowledge a valid same-sex marriage legally executed in a state (in this case the Commonwealth of Massachusetts), the Federal government is refusing to provide Federal benefits to married same-sex couples, while providing benefits to married different-sex couples. This denial violates the doctrine of “states’ rights” which contends that the states, not the federal government, are endowed with the inherent right to regulate the citizenry.

Hillary Sorin wrote the following on this issue:

“Five states now legally marry same-sex couples, but these couples are denied the federal protections and programs available to married straight couples. These include income-tax credits, employment and retirement benefits, health insurance coverage, Social Security payments and immigration benefits for spouses of U.S. citizens.”

Of particular interest to readers of this blog is probably the fact that DOMA effectively precludes US Family based visas because the Federal government refuses to recognize a same sex marriage (or an intention to obtain a same sex marriage) within the United States.

If DOMA were to be repealed then it is logical to assume that those same sex bi-national couples who marry in Massachusetts (or any state where same-sex marriage is legal) would be able to obtain a Permanent Resident Visa (CR-1, IR-1) based upon that valid marriage. Further, an unmarried  same sex couple with an intention to travel to the United States for the purpose of marriage could conceivably obtain a K-1 visa if the Defense of Marriage Act was no longer Federal law.

This case will be very interesting to follow because the ramifications on Immigration law will be tremendous as the whole field of US Family Immigration will likely be opened up to those couples previously unable to obtain US Immigration benefits.

(Please note that the author has no intention that reader use this information in place of legal advice. For advice on the law, please contact a licensed attorney. No attorney-client relationship is created between the author and any reader of this article.)

more Comments: 04

1st July 2009

President Obama has recently been criticized by many members of the LGBT community for what appears to be a reversal of his campaign stance on same-sex rights.  Presently President Obama’s Justice Department is defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the US courts. However, President Obama has made statements claiming that while his administration is in the process of enforcing the provisions of DOMA, he is also working to have the law repealed. Apparently, President Obama is trying to apply pressure to Congress in order to make them repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. Mr. Obama was quoted in a speech as saying:

“I’ve called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act to help end discrimination against same-sex couples in this country. Now, I want to add we have a duty to uphold existing law, but I believe we must do so in a way that does not exacerbate old divides. And fulfilling this duty in upholding the law in no way lessens my commitment to reversing this law.”

What are the Consequences on US Immigration if the Defense of Marriage Act is Repealed?

Should the Defense of Marriage Act be repealed, the upshot would be that the Federal government would recognize same-sex marriage. Therefore, US Immigration benefits would likely be conferred based upon a marital relationship. Thus, if a same sex couple enters into a valid marriage in a country like Belgium, then they could file an I-130 petition for a CR-1 visa based upon their relationship (under this hypothetical scenario, they could also file a supplemental visa application for a K3 visa).

In another hypothetical situation, the same couple are now unmarried, but they have a bona fide relationship and intend to marry in the United States in a jurisdiction that allows and recognizes same sex marriage (Massachusetts for example). This factual situation would likely allow that couple to file a visa application for a K-1 visa because the parties would meet the legal requirements imposed upon those wishing to obtain a US visa for a fiance.

It is currently uncertain whether Obama will successfully lead the charge to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. What is certain is the fact that should the Defense of Marriage Act be repealed it will have a major impact on United States law and a crucial impact upon same sex immigration rights. If Obama is successful in repealing DOMA the upshot will likely be that the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) will be rendered superfluous because same sex marriage would be included in the umbrella term “marriage” under current US Immigration law.

(Please not that the above information is for eductaional purposes only. No attorney-client relationship shall be inferred to be formed between the author and any readers of this post.)

more Comments: 04

4th June 2009

On June 3rd the United States Senate held hearings on the Uniting American Families Act for the first time. This was a historic event because it marked the first time in history that the Senate held hearing regarding Same-Sex Family Immigration matters.

For those unfamiliar with the UAFA, it is a bill that would add the term “Permanent Partner” to the list of those eligible for US Immigration benefits based upon a family relationship. Under the Defense of Marriage Act, the Federal government only recognizes marriage between a man and a woman. The UAFA creates a new category of family member, namely: Permanent Partners.

A note of importance, the President of AILA , The American Immigration Lawyers Association, submitted a statement to the committee supporting the enactment of the Uniting of American Families Act. An interesting quote from the statement:

“[S]ame sex partners of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents are not recognized as family members under current immigration law, no matter how long-term or committed the relationship. This outdated and biased definition forces U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents to make unconscionable, life-altering decisions to either relocate to a foreign country or permanently separate from their loved ones.”

The hearing was punctuated by the heart wrenching story of an immigrant partner who was taken away by US Immigration officers and deported in full view of her partner and family members in the USA.  The witness said on the record, “I was put into a van with two men in yellow jump suits and chains and searched like a criminal, in a way I have only seen in movies.”

On a related topic, the American State Department recently changed internal rules in order to allow same-sex partners of State Department employees the same rights as different sex couples. US Secretary of State was quoted as saying such rule changes were the “right thing to do.”

Current Immigration law still does not allow American Immigration benefits for same sex loved ones of American Citizens, but the above changes in guidelines and proposed enactments would greatly equalize immigration law to the benefit of same sex couples. It should be noted that this proposed legislation would have no effect on the Defense of Marriage Act, nor would it have any effect with regard to gay marriage. Instead, it would grant immigration benefits to persons previously not qualified to receive them.

(Nothing contained herein is to be construed as legal advice. No lawyer/client relationship is created by reading this post)

more Comments: 04

26th May 2009

The American State Department, as of May 24th, has begun offering benefits to same sex partners of American diplomats and State Department employees. This comes after many years of the US State Department refusing to grant benefits to same sex partners and spouses. The justification that the state department previously used was based upon the Defense of Marriage Act. State Department officials often sighted DOMA claiming that it precluded allowing benefits for same sex partners.

The current move made by the State Department signals a major shift in state department policy on the issue of same sex domestic issues. Of great import is the fact that among other benefits, same sex partners will be issued diplomatic passports along with their diplomat partner or spouse.

In a State Department memo circulated pursuant to this regulatory change Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton hinted that this change was overdue. Secretary Clinton stated, “At bottom, the department will provide these benefits for both opposite-sex and same-sex partners because it is the right thing to do,”

This begs the question that if, at bottom, these benefits ought to be conferred because “it is the right thing to do,” then isn’t granting same sex couple’s US Family Immigration benefits the right thing to do as well? The Uniting of American Families Act is a piece of legislation that would allow US citizens to obtain US visas for their alien same sex partner.

In this situation, the US State Department has disregarded the spirit of the Defense of Marriage Act by conferring these benefits upon same sex partners and will likely prevail in doing so because offering these benefits is a prerogative of the Secretary of State and under the bailiwick of the executive branch of the United States government (Under the doctrine of Separation of Powers, there are certain areas in which each branch of government cannot be challenged by another branch).

The UAFA also subtly avoids the restrictions imposed by the Defense of Marriage Act by creating a new category of US Visa under the United States Immigration an Nationality Act. This new visa category would allow an alien to obtain a US visa based upon family relationship if the meet the definition of “permanent partner.”

As we have previously stated on this blog, the US Immigration implictions of the enactment of the Uniting of American Families Act would be a watershed for Same Sex immigration rights as well as a very interesting case study in conflict of laws.

For more information on US Immigration from Thailand Please see:

K1 Visa Thailand

Fiance Visa Thailand

K3 Visa Thailand

(Please note that the information contained herein is for educational purposes only and should not be used as a substitute for legal advice. No lawyer client relationship is formed between author and reader).

more Comments: 04

The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertisement. Before you decide, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications and experience. The information presented on this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.