Integrity Legal

In turns of events that may have seemed fantastical even 4 years ago, the Anglo-American socio-political, economic, and legal spheres are evolving at a rapid rate with little end in sight. This blogger recently discovered that a group in a county of the United Kingdom has arrested a judge invoking ancient rights granted pursuant to Magna Carta. To quote directly from the WirralGlobe.co.uk:

Protestors have “civilly arrested” a judge at Birkenhead county court…Made up of people from across the UK, the marchers say they are exerting their “ancient right to lawful Rebellion under Magna Carta…”The crowd, although largely peaceful, is chanting “freedom” and “arrest that judge…”

This blogger highly recommends that those so interested click upon the above links to view an in depth report on this interesting state of affairs. This blogger would also suggest clicking on this link to see what appears to be a video documenting these events happening in real time. In any event, the affairs mentioned above are notable in that it is not all the time one sees the British Citizenry engaged in such endeavors. The current propensity toward unconventional tactics and methods in the political and legal spheres is having an impact upon currency in the United States and around the world as the United States, the United Kingdom, China, and the nations comprising the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are all encountering political pressure resulting from economic forces acting upon these nations. In an effort to gain leverage over an increasingly difficult economic situation the House of Representatives in the sovereign State of Utah has passed legislation which would promote gold and silver as legal tender within the jurisdiction of the State of Utah. To quote directly from the website TalkingPointsMemo.com:

The Utah House of Representatives has approved a bill that allowing gold and silver coins to be used as currency, though unlike similar bills in other states, it doesn’t force anyone to accept gold or silver as legal tender. House Bill 317 was introduced by state Rep. Brad Galvez (R) last week, and passed the House by a vote of 47-26. It will now head to the state Senate for a vote. [sic]

Clearly the political winds of change are blowing across North America, the United Kingdom, and Europe. How events will unfold as the stories above play out are anyone’s guess, but those Americans resident abroad in Asia as well as other expatriates and Citizens of nations such as China, Thailand, Indonesia, India, and the ASEAN member nations are likely watching some of these events unfold with a keen eye as modern history has shown that events occurring in one location can have reverberations of a global magnitude.

For related information please see: Integrity Legal.

In what could possibly be one of the most convoluted political and legal issues currently in the American zeitgeist it has been reported by various sources that President Barack Obama is under pressure from many different groups regarding his recent decision not to enforce key provisions of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA). To quote directly from an article posted on AfricaOnline.com:

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich suggested last week that President Obama overstepped his constitutional bounds when he announced he would no longer defend Defense of Marriage Act in court.

In matters pertaining to United States Constitutional law the lines between the political and legal spheres begin to blur and for this reason the issues surrounding what may be the most interesting legal situation in recent history are difficult to sort out for those who have not kept up with the evolving posture of this issue. To provide a brief summation: the United States Federal government is currently barred from recognizing marriages between same-sex couples pursuant to the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Meanwhile, 7 jurisdictions in the United States, including 6 sovereign States, currently license same sex unions. Meanwhile, many sovereign American States have promulgated State Constitutional amendments forbidding recognition of marriage between same sex couples. Currently, there is a case that has been adjudicated by the Massachusetts Federal District Court which found that States have a fundamental right to marry those within their jurisdiction. Amongst advocates of States’ Rights, the significant issue in the DOMA cases is: FEDERAL recognition of same sex marriages legalized and solemnized within the States’ jurisdiction. To continue quoting Mr. Gingrich according to AfricaOnline.com:

“Imagine that Governor Palin had become president,” Gingrich said. “Imagine that she had announced that Roe versus Wade in her view was unconstitutional and therefore the United States government would no longer protect anyone’s right to have an abortion because she personally had decided it should be changed. The news media would have gone crazy. The New York Times would have demanded her impeachment.”

For those unfamiliar with the Roe versus Wade decision, this was the Supreme Court case which allowed women to receive abortions based upon an interpretation of the US Constitution. It is interesting that Mr. Gingrich noted the lack of “Mainstream Media” attention to this issue as there are those who could argue that the issue of equal rights for the LGBT community is an issue often overlooked by major media outlets. Clearly, the issue of same sex marriage is provoking strong reaction from various sectors of the American political spectrum, to quote directly from the website ThinkProgress.org:

Now, in the right’s furor over the administration’s announcement that it will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) is calling for Obama to be impeached.

After the Arizona Republican advocated defunding the Department of Justice if it does not defend Section 3 of DOMA – “I would support that in a moment,” remarked Franks – he went on to say that he would “absolutely” favor impeaching President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder if such a move “could gain collective support”…

It would appear as though this issue is causing a great deal of political turmoil for Mr. Obama, but what is even more interesting are the underlying issues at stake for both the LGBT community and the sovereign States which comprise the United States of America.

To be clear, this blogger fully believes that the right to marry whomever one chooses to marry is a fundamental inalienable right and equal protection of that right should be accorded to members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community. In this blogger’s personal opinion, if two people wish to consensually enter into a marital union, then their respective genders should not be relevant for purposes of government recognition of that union. However, there is an even stronger argument in favor of requiring Federal recognition of same sex marriage and this argument stems from the fact that 6 states have allowed some form of same sex union (civil union or marriage). Clearly, States have traditionally been vested with the power to solemnize and legalize marriages within their respective jurisdictions and the Federal government should be required to recognize such unions, but the provisions of DOMA preclude such recognition. For example, same sex bi-national couples who have legalized a marriage in, say, Massachusetts cannot be accorded the same immigration benefits as their different-sex counterparts pursuant to the provisions of DOMA. There has been some discussion of legislation such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) which would rectify this problem in the context of United States immigration, but this still leaves a fundamental question unanswered: when did the Federal government get the right to dictate to the States what shall constitute a marriage?

As to the Obama Administration’s decision to not pursue cases in support of the Defense of Marriage Act: the sentiment is laudable, but ultimately this action may not be in the best interests of the LGBT community as such inaction results in fewer, if any, cases or controversies coming before the Supreme Court thereby removing the platform for the Supreme Court to make a broad binding decision regarding the Defense of Marriage Act itself (and possibly the overall issue of same sex marriage in general), the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and the other legal issues, such as discrimination against same sex bi-national couples, which come “part and parcel” with continued enforcement of the Defense of Marriage Act.

It is this blogger’s personal opinion that the United States Supreme Court will find in favor of recognition of same sex marriage, but in what could prove to be a sort of convoluted decision wherein Justices such as Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts find in favor of the right of the States to set policy regarding who can get married within their jurisdiction while the more “liberal” or “civil libertarian” wing of the Court finds in favor of granting same sex couples the right to Federal recognition of a legally solemnized State marriage based more upon a finding that the issue is one of civil rights.

For related information please see: LGBT Visa.

Frequent readers may have noticed that the administration of this blog posts the holiday closing schedules of various US Posts in Asia as a courtesy to American travelers abroad. To quote directly from the official website of the United States Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan:

The U.S. Mission will officially observe only the holidays listed below.

Those interested in viewing the official homepage of the United States Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan please click HERE.

Those seeking services which can only be provided by an American Citizen Services Section of a US Embassy or US Consulate abroad (such as issuance of a Consular Report of Birth Abroad, US Passport, and additional visa pages for a previously issued US Passport) are well advised to attempt to set an appointment for services in advance as doing so can greatly streamline the processing of bona fide requests.

Those seeking travel documents such as the US tourist visa (B-2 visa), US business visa (B-1 visa), US student visa (F-1 visa), and the US exchange visitor visa (J-1 visa) are likely to see their visa application processed at a Non-Immigrant (NIV) Unit abroad. It should be noted that the non-immigrant visa applications noted above are generally analyzed by interviewing Consular Officers pursuant to section 214(b) of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act.

Those seeking immigrant visas such as the IR-1 visa or the CR-1 visa for foreign spouses and loved ones of US Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents are likely to see their visa application processed at an Immigrant Visa (IV) Unit abroad. It should be noted that the US fiance visa, categorized as the K-1 visa, is processed in much the same manner as the immigrant visas notwithstanding the fact that the K-1 is a non-immigrant visa category.

Those seeking an EB-5 visa as a prospective immigrant investor or an L-1 visa as a prospective intra-company transferee are likely to only see their visa application processed pursuant to an approved immigration petition at the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS).

The following holiday closing schedule was quoted directly from the official website of the United States Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq:

* This Iraqi holiday is determined by the lunar cycle. Exact dates must be confirmed by local authorities and are subject to change.

** In keeping with the spirit of the Monday Holiday Bill, the intention of which is to provide three-day holiday weekends, U.S. holidays covered by the Monday Holiday Bill will be observed on Sundays.

The Embassy will consider moving the observation date of local holidays (religious and secular) falling on weekends in the event that the Iraqi Government issues guidance mandating that the private and public sectors change the observance date.

Those interested in visiting the official website of the United States Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq please click HERE.

Those seeking services which can only be provided by staff at a US Embassy or US Consulate abroad (such as issuance of a Consular Report of Birth Abroad, US Passport, or issuance of new pages for a previously issued US Passport) may find it efficient to attempt to set an appointment with the American Citizen Services Section of a US Post prior to arrival at said post. It may be possible under some circumstances to set an appointment online prior to traveling to the post. Setting an appointment online can greatly streamline the processing of requests at US Posts abroad.

Those seeking a US tourist visa (B-2 visa), US business visa (B-1 visa), US Exchange visitor visa (J-1 visa),  or a US student visa (F-1 visa) are likely to see their visa application processed by a Non-immigrant visa unit at a US Embassy or US Consulate abroad. It should be noted that such visa applications are scrutinized pursuant to section 214(b) of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act.

Those Americans seeking an immigrant visa for a foreign spouse (such as the CR-1 visa and the IR-1 visa) are likely to see their loved one’s visa application processed at an Immigrant Visa Unit abroad. It should be noted that for processing purposes the K-1 visa (a non-immigrant US fiance visa) is treated in much the same manner as the Immigrant visa categories.

Those seeking visas such as the L-1 visa for intra-company transferees or the EB-5 visa for immigrant investors are likely to only see a visa application processed pursuant to an approved immigration petition at the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS).

It recently came to this blogger’s attention via Mr. Paul Huang at the Law Firm of Cenlaw in Shanghai, China that Chinese government officials have promulgated new rules for reviewing mergers and acquisitions in a national security context. To quote Mr. Paul Huang directly:

The State Council of China has laid out long-awaited rules and procedures for national security reviews of foreign mergers and acquisitions. The new acquisition rules will commence operation in March of 2011. Under the rules, the new National Security Review Committee led by China’s National Development and Reform Commission and the Ministry of Commerce that already review mergers under the Chinese antitrust rules will review mergers and acquisitions targeting key companies in the defense, agriculture, energy, resources, infrastructure, transportation and equipment-manufacturing and technology industries. It will apply a broad definition of national security, assessing the impact of deals on economic stability, social order and China’s ability to research and develop key technologies for national defense.

The administration of this blog encourages readers to check out the publications section of the Cenlaw website as it is filled with relevant and detailed information regarding the legal issues which can arise in the context of Chinese business.

As more international investors seek business opportunities in Asia, it will become increasingly necessary for such investors to comply with applicable local laws and regulations. The legal systems in Asian jurisdictions can be very similar or extremely different from Western legal systems. For example, the SAR of Hong Kong, China has a legal system which has its roots in the common law tradition. This state of affairs could be attributed to the fact that Hong Kong was once a Crown Colony of the United Kingdom. Meanwhile, so-called “Mainland China” has a legal tradition that is quite unlike any other jurisdiction in the world. At the same time, the Kingdom of Thailand in Southeast Asia has a legal system which draws upon many different legal traditions around the world while maintaining a uniquely Thai complexion.

Many Western stock exchanges have announced various plans to consolidate through multi-jurisdictional merger or acquisition. This state of affairs will likely raise increasingly complex legal issues as business transactions increasingly occur in a transnational context. As Southeast Asia sees the creation of new stock exchanges in countries such as Laos and Cambodia. It appears increasingly likely that the legal systems in those countries will be of ever increasing interest to international investors seeking information about doing business in those jurisdictions. It will be interesting to follow these developments as business in China and the countries which comprise the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) become increasingly dominant in a global business context.

For related information please see: Laos Stock Exchange.

It recently came to this blogger’s attention through the Huffington Post website that a legislator in the sovereign State of New Hampshire has introduced a bill that could criminalize certain activities of the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA). To quote directly from the story posted on the Huffington Post official website:

A Republican state representative from New Hampshire named George Lambert has co-sponsored a bill that would make it a felony to touch or view someone’s private parts without probable cause.

Lambert was interviewed by MSNBC on Wednesday to discuss the bill, which would apply to TSA pat downs, as well as the agency’s x-ray scanners. The bill would essentially make it a sexual assault to conduct an invasive pat down or look at images of a traveler on one of the TSA’s new high-tech scanners.

Clearly, the TSA’s current policies on so-called “pat downs” (which many argue are unduly invasive and violate Constitutional protections prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure) and scanning are under fire from many different circles. However, the question must be posed: is New Hampshire Constitutionally permitted to enforce criminal sanctions against TSA officers? TSA officers operate under the jurisdiction of the United States Federal government’s Department of Homeland Security. Most currently binding American jurisprudence has found against the notion that State’s may enforce State law against Federal agents or institutions. The most notable case in this vein is probably McCulloch v. Maryland. In the language of the McCulloch decision, the Court found that the State of Maryland did not have the right to levy a tax upon the Bank of the United States. This decision set the stage for the, now rather sophisticated, premise that the States’ power to enforce State law is curtailed when attempting to enforce that law against the Federal government. Through later cases, this notion was expanded upon. This blogger recently found an interesting article on this topic entitled: What Kind of Immunity? Federal Officers, State Criminal Law, and the Supremacy Clause. This article delves deeply into the issues associated with Federal preemption of State prerogatives in matters pertaining to Federal operations and Federal agents and this blogger highly recommends those interested in this issue click on the link above to read this article.

It would appear from the plain language of the McCulloch decision that the States’ ability to enforce actions against the Federal government are not restricted completely. To quote directly from page 2219 of the What Kind of Immunity? article noted above, the article’s authors, Seth P. Waxman and Trevor W. Morrison, cited a section of the McCulloch decision which is noteworthy:

[N]o principle [of state power] . . . can be admissible, which would defeat the legitimate operations of a supreme government. It is of the very essence of supremacy, to remove all obstacles to its action within its own sphere, and so to modify every power vested insubordinate governments, as to exempt its own operations from their own influence.

At first blush, the above citation may appear to fully favor the Federal authorities on the issue of whether the sovereign State of New Hampshire has the authority to enforce criminal penalties against TSA officers, but one phrase is critical to an analysis of New Hampshire’s proposed legislation and that phrase is “legitimate operations“. In the McCulloch case, the Bank of the United States was deemed to be a legitimate operation of the Federal government notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution did not expressly permit such an institution because the Court reasoned that the Federal government, through the Necessary and Proper Clause, could establish a bank so as to facilitate the express Federal powers granted under the Taxing and Spending Clause. In short: the Federal government’s ability to tax and spend is considered a “legitimate operation” of the Federal government and if a bank facilitates that operation, then it is operating lawfully.

This analysis begs the question: Is groping Americans’ genitalia (also referred to as “enhanced pat downs”) and capturing nude body scanner images a “legitimate operation” of the Federal government? If not, then the State may have a right to enforce State criminal law against those who engage in such activity. That said, this issue is far from resolved and the State of New Hampshire has yet to actually promulgate this legislation, but clearly the issues noted above make for interesting jurisprudence.

For related information please see: US States.

The following holiday closing schedule was quoted directly from the official website of the United States Embassy in Port Louis, Mauritius:

**The exact date of this festival will depend on the visibility of the moon.
***December 25, 2011 (the legal public holiday for Christmas Day), falls on a Sunday. For most Federal employees, Monday, December 26, will be treated as a holiday for pay and leave purposes.

Those wishing to visit the official homepage of the United States Embassy in Mauritius please click: HERE.

Those seeking services which can only be provided by a US Embassy or US Consulate abroad (such as issuance of a new US Passport, Consular Report of Birth Abroad, or additional visa pages for a previously issued US Passport) are well advised to contact an American Citizen Services (ACS) Section of the nearest US Consulate with appropriate jurisdiction. In some cases, it may be possible to set an appointment with the post online. Setting an appointment with the post in advance may prove beneficial as foreknowledge of customer requests can greatly streamline the processing of such requests.

Those seeking non-immigrant visas such as the B-2 visa for tourists, the F-1 visa for students, the J-1 visa for exchange visitors, or the B-1 visa for business travelers are likely to see their visa application processed at a Non-immigrant visa (NIV) Unit abroad. Those seeking such travel documents should bear in mind that such applications are scrutinized pursuant to section 214(b) of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act.

Those seeking immigrant visas for foreign family members such as the CR-1 visa or the IR-1 visa are likely to see their visa application processed pursuant to an approved immigration petition at the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS).  For application processing purposes, it should be noted that the K-1 visa, a non-immigrant US fiance visa, is treated in a similar manner to the aforementioned immigrant visas noted above.

Those seeking visas such as the L-1 visa for intra-company transferees or the EB-5 visa for immigrant investors are likely to only see a visa application processed after receiving approval on an immigration petition at the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS).

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) will be changing their procedures in matters pertaining to address changes. To quote directly from the website of the Division of International Services NIH Office of Research Services:

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has announced new mailing addresses for submitting the Form AR-11. The form must now be mailed to an office in Kentucky, and not to the USCIS Headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Forms submitted via the U.S. Postal Service should be sent to:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Change of Address
P.O. Box 7134
London, KY 40742-7134

Forms submitted via commercial overnight or freight services should be sent to:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Change of Address
1084-I South Laurel Road
London, KY 40744

Any forms previously mailed to the USCIS Headquarters will be forwarded to the Kentucky office. A new version of the Form AR-11, which includes the new mailing addresses, has been issued and is now available on the usCIS website (click here to download a copy of the form). Additional information on the change of address is available here on the USCIS website.

The administration of this blog highly recommends that readers click on the above link to read the full announcement.

This issue could be of particular importance for those who have recently filed a petition for immigration benefits and subsequently moved their place of residence. Also, those who enter the United States of America in K-1 visa status (the categorical name for the US fiance visa) should take note of the above announcements as K-1 visa holders are required to submit an application for adjustment of status in order to be granted lawful permanent residence in the USA. In some cases, a bi-national couple may find that they need to change their address while the adjustment of status is pending. Failure to advise the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) of such a change could result in processing delays or a situation in which a couple is not notified of an upcoming adjustment of status interview. This could result in the couple missing said interview and the K-1 fiancee falling out of status due to a deficient adjustment. For these reasons, keeping USCIS abreast of one’s address while a petition is pending is very prudent.

In a recent posting on this blog it was also noted that the USCIS has recently changed their policy regarding employment authorization and advance parole. The service is apparently issuing advance parole on the same document that grants employment authorization prior to adjustment. Advance parole is a benefit that can be granted to those holding K-1 visa status which allows the visa holder to leave the country while an adjustment is pending. Failure to obtain advance parole prior to leaving the USA could result in the K-1 visa beneficiary falling out of status and thereby requiring the process to be restarted all over again.

For related information please: K1 Visa Thailand.

The following holiday closing schedule is quoted directly from the official website of the United States Embassy in Ulaanbataar, Mongolia:

Date	Week Day	Holiday	Nationality
Dec 31	Friday	New Year’s Day	American
Jan 17	Monday	Martin Luther King’s, Jr. Day	American
Feb 3	Thursday	Lunar New Year *	Mongolian
Feb 4	Friday	Lunar New Year *	Mongolian
Feb 21	Monday	President’s Day	American
March 8	Tuesday	International Women’s Day	Mongolian
May 30	Monday	Memorial Day	American
June 1	Wednesday	Mother and Child Day	Mongolian
July 4	Monday	Independence Day	American
July 11	Monday	National Holiday Naadam	Mongolian
July 12	Tuesday	National Holiday Naadam	Mongolian
July 13	Wednesday	National Holiday Naadam	Mongolian
Sep 5	Monday	Labor Day	American
Oct 10	Monday	Columbus Day	American
Nov 11	Friday	Veteran’s Day	American
Nov 24	Thursday	Thanksgiving Day	American
Nov 25	Friday	Constitution Day	Mongolian
Dec 26	Monday	Christmas Day	American
Dec 30	Friday	NewsYear’s Day	American & Mongolian

*Lunar New Year date may change according to the local Astrologers’ decision.

Those wishing to go to the official homepage of the United States Embassy in Mongolia please click HERE.

Those seeking services which can only be provided at an American Citizen Services Section of a US Embassy or US Consulate abroad (such as issuance of a Consular Report of Birth Abroad, US Passport, or additional visa pages in a previously issued US Passport) are well advised to attempt to make an appointment with the Post online (if possible) in order to streamline the processing of requests lodged with the Consulate.

Those seeking non-immigrant visas such as the B-2 visa for foreign tourists, the B-1 visa for foreign business travelers, the J-1 visa for exchange visitors, or the F-1 visa for foreign students are likely to see their applications processed at a non-immigrant visa unit abroad. It should be noted that such applications are scrutinized pursuant to the provisions of section 214(b) of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act.

Those seeking immigrant visas for foreign loved ones (such as the CR-1 visa or the IR-1 visa) are likely to see their visa application processed at an immigrant visa unit abroad following the approval of an underlying immigration petition at the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). For processing purposes, the K-1 visa is treated in much the same way as the immigrant visa categories notwithstanding the fact that it is technically a non-immigrant US fiance visa.

Those seeking an L-1 visa or EB-5 visa for business travel purposes are likely to only see their visa application processed following a successful adjudication of an underlying immigrant visa petition at the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS).

It recently came to this blogger’s attention that the Department of Homeland Security may soon be utilizing a portable DNA screener which can establish kinship via DNA comparison in a relatively quick span of time. To quote directly from the website Nextgov.com (a site dedicated to providing information about the confluence of technology and government):

[P]lans to begin testing a DNA analyzer that’s small enough to be easily portable and fast enough to return results in less than an hour.

The analyzer, about the size of a laser printer, initially will be used to determine kinship among refugees and asylum seekers. It also could help establish whether foreigners giving children up for adoption are their parents or other relatives, and help combat child smuggling and human trafficking, said Christopher Miles, biometrics program manager in the DHS Office of Science and Technology.

The administration of this web log highly recommends that readers click on the links above to read this interesting article in its entirety.

This technology could have some remarkably positive implications. For example, as noted above, the ability to quickly determine a genetic link between two individuals could expedite the processing of requests for American immigration benefits such as asylum or conferral of refugee status. Moreover, such technology could be tremendously useful in adjudications pertaining to issuance of a Certificate of Citizenship or Consular Report of Birth Abroad. Also, technology such as this could truly be useful in combating problems such as human trafficking (hopefully with particular emphasis upon trafficking in children). This being said, There are some eerily Orwellian aspects to technology such as this. To continue quoting from the above cited article on Nextgov.com:

Eventually, the analyzer also could be used to positively identify criminals, illegal immigrants, missing persons and mass casualty victims, he said.

The implications for so-called “criminals,” (a term often applied loosely by law enforcement personnel) could be serious. Usage of technology such as that noted above, when utilized against American Citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents in matters which could have an impact upon individual civil liberties, needs to comport with the protections guaranteed to individuals under the United States Constitution and enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

Some may ponder: “Why does this blogger take issue with technology such as that noted above when utilized against US Citizens, while being less concerned for the rights of refugees and asylum seekers?” The short answer: prospective immigrants outside of the United States have virtually no “rights”. Those seeking immigration benefits are seeking just that: BENEFITS. While American Citizens and those already admitted to the United States in Lawful Permanent Resident status (or another lawful visa status) are guaranteed certain protections from governmental intrusion.

Widespread usage of this technology has yet to be implemented, but one thing is clear: technology is revolutionizing all aspects of the US Immigration process.

For related information please see: DHS Iris Scanners.