Career Advice

I just got an e-mail from a student at a top-tier law school* wanting some advice for

a young man covered in tattoos who never wants to say to a character and fitness committee that he enjoyed, say, Craft’s Fuck the Universe? Should I wear my Extreme Conditions Demand Extreme Responses shirt to law school, and when? And how do I steer myself to a job that doesn’t make me want to retch?

Most of this will apply to any metalhead who wants to enter a professional career, but I'm going to focus on lawyers.

So, first of all, your musical taste is not going to come up unless you bring it up. Nobody asks that question, and only music snobs care. (And yes, all metalheads are music snobs.)

Tattoos, on the other hand, might be a problem. Thankfully you'll be wearing a jacket any time it matters. If that doesn't cover up your tattoos, I can't help you. I'm sure there are places and specialty areas where it won't matter, but I'm not knowledgeable about what those might be.

As far as your clothing choices in law school, I think you have to get a sense for the culture of your school. If most people are wearing T-shirts, then wear whatever T-shirt you want. It won't matter, at least not unless you're wearing something particularly offensive. Law school is interesting in that you won't be able to simply remain silent in class. You will be called upon to speak, and your intelligence and thoughtfulness will be what informs your cohorts' opinions of you. Certainly more than the shirt you're wearing.

In your professional life--which starts for real after your first year of law school, for most--your work and your attitude are going to speak for you. If you have the right attitude and put out solid work, then people will like you. Don't start blasting Destruktor on your first day, though. Get comfortable in the office first, and then, if you think it's OK, and people already have a sense of you, you can play music in your office. At a reasonable volume of course. And if someone comes in to talk, have the decency to turn it off so you can listen to them without distraction. If someone hears your music, but they already like you, they'll find it curious or weirdly charming.

Now, on to what I think is the most difficult question: How to get into a job that you don't hate. Oscar Wilde famously said, "The study of law is sublime, and its practice vulgar." I found that to be true in most cases. There is probably a positive correlation between vulgarity and pay, too. The more ambitious you are, I suspect, the more disgusting your ultimate career is likely to be. As for me, I landed in a small firm in a relatively small town (Lincoln), so it wasn't terrible by any means. But the private practice of law is always going to involve two things: counsel and salesmanship. The counseling part was fine. I often enjoyed it. But ultimately I found any kind of salesmanship to be too distasteful for me. And that's why I landed in government.

If I said any more on the topic, I'd only be speculating. I believe you can get a feel for the culture of an office through an interview. But any place where they demand top-tier law school students and work everyone 80 hours per week is going to be a soulless hellpit. If you want to make six figures out the gate, that's what you're looking at. If you want to love your job, find some area that's meaningful to you and try to work in that field.

There is one piece of advice I can give that I know for certain is good: Don't let law school or your career take over your entire life. My law school cohorts told me, after our first year, that I had the right idea. I made time every day to read for pleasure. You need to keep a hobby and make personal time every single day. Firstly, because it's just not worth it if you can't. And secondly, because you really don't need to work that hard to succeed in law school. You're probably more intimidated than you need to be. You got in, and that means you're smart. You can handle it. Maybe not if your goal is to be in the top ten percent, but if that's your goal, you're asking the wrong person.

I hope this helps.

*Incidentally, in looking at school rankings so I could remove the name of the school, I realized that based on LSAT scores, I likely could have gone to a top ten law school. Oh, well. I prefer where I am in life now.

On the Suicide of Robin Williams

For some reason people seem surprised that Robin Williams committed suicide. If you had asked me a month ago to pick the celebrity most likely to kill himself, he would have topped my list. The last time I saw him on a talk show--several years back--it struck me just how desperately he wanted people to like him. (Which, in turn, made me desperately not like him.) The man was not psychologically self-sufficient.

I did not like him as an actor. He ruined or threatened to ruin any movie he was in, as fas as I'm concerned. The movies where he played a starring role are intolerable to me, with the lone exception being Aladdin. It's been my impression that he seriously fell out of favor with the public as well, but of course with his death everyone likes him again.

But suicide is an important topic to me. My brother killed himself. So despite the fact I rarely comment about celebrities here, I want to talk about it.

This is a blessing and a curse. Apparently a celebrity suicide often triggers a rash of suicides, and that's sad. At the same time, it's an opportunity to raise awareness. With other causes, awareness is a goal primarily because it raises money. With suicide, awareness is the most important goal. Not because people need to realize how selfish it is. That's not exactly accurate, because it's the result of powerful forces acting to overpower rational thought. Martin Luther said, "I don't have the opinion that suicides are certainly to be damned. My reason is that they do not wish to kill themselves but are overcome by the power of the devil." but because they need to realize they need to get help. And it's OK to ask for help.

So please, if you're depressed, you need to admit it to yourself, and get help. If anyone suggests they might be thinking about it, please be open, understanding, and encourage them to find help.

Two Laments

I have two laments. One, for the state of the Republican party as it exists today. Two, for the evil that is the Hastert Rule, and how it can bring our country to this kind of stupid, completely preventable crisis.

We don't have a party that represents the middle class. I wish we did, or that we could abolish all parties. But that's not the state of affairs we're in.

The conventional wisdom is that when a third political party enters the scene, it acts only as a spoiler. You have party A and party B, but now suddenly there is party A1 and A2, they split their votes, and only part B wins. A2 is not really a viable party, and it ruins A1's chances of winning.

But something insidious has happened here. Instead of creating a third party, a small, highly vocal, and incredibly extreme faction has remained within the larger party. The party has been hijacked from within, while nobody was watching. This was made possible by the establishment underestimating them, leading to unexpected wins. These wins were followed by unusual redistricting, which, instead of making them more competitive in districts they usually lose, completely locked down a few districts so that the other party is irrelevant in those places. They may never win a majority in the Senate again, or win the Presidency again, but they can never lose those districts.

That, coupled with party loyalty (the Hastert Rule), has created a tyranny of the super-minority. You should know about the Hastert Rule.

The Hastert Rule (an informal practice since the 90's) means that no Republican Speaker of the House will bring anything to a vote unless a majority of the Republican party says they'll vote in favor. Everyone says they want bipartisanship, but that's the most blatantly partisan practice in our government today. Something needs to be done about House rules, permanently, to make this impossible.

As long as Republicans hold 51% of the house, then 51% of Republicans (or a minimum of 26% of the House) can wreak havoc. That's what happened this month, in case you weren't paying attention. The Hastert Rule makes compromise impossible, especially when you have people whose seats are impervious to challenge coming to the bargaining table with nothing to offer except agreement to things that everyone wants, even them.

The worst part of this, to me, is seeing people's blindness. Their failure to see what's going on. Out of blind loyalty to the name Republican, many people just automatically pick that side. They don't realize their own party is no longer recognizable, because it has a cancer. They can't see how irresponsibly it's acting.

A news article I just read calls the Republican party "splintered." Let's hope it breaks completely. Then we can see compromise again. We can see progress again. We can see real, good-faith negotiation again.

Security

I want to talk about this week's major event. Of course, I'm referring to the bombing at the Boston Marathon. The loss of life is tragic, and finding those responsible is on everyone's minds, but I can't speak to those things better than anyone else.

What I can speak to is security. Our nation spends a lot of money on security, and a lot of people dismiss many of those security steps as theater, there to make people feel better about security. I'm not sure why that's a criticism, because the idea of terrorism is to make people feel worse. Cost-effectiveness aside, if your enemy's goal is X, then Not X seems to be a valuable goal.

I can't really speak to that much, though. I am in the Department of Homeland Security, but I work for an agency that's an outlier in the department: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. (Please refer to my disclaimer: I speak only on my own behalf, and my views are not necessarily representative of my employer.) It seems like just about every branch of DHS has a lot of agents out there with guns. FEMA doesn't, as far as I know, and neither does USCIS. So, how is it that we fit into the security picture? What makes my job worthwhile, in the greater scheme of things?

When DHS was created, the old INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) was split into three parts. Two are focused on enforcement, but USCIS is the branch that grants immigration benefits. Other than the simple fact of keeping those three elements loosely associated, it might not be obvious why USCIS is part of Homeland Security. But I think there's a very good reason.

Our immigration laws lay out a whole lot of legitimate reasons why someone can come to this country. Our job is to determine whether someone meets the requirements of the law. If they don't, we don't let them in. Our role in security is understood if you look at the converse of that: We keep out people who don't have a legitimate reason to be here. That's huge. There are other security aspects to what we do, but I think that's the biggest one.

This also leads to the biggest problem with illegal immigration. If we could put a stop to your run-of-the-mill illegal immigration, it would free up a lot of resources to go after the dangerous illegal immigrants. Just my two cents on that.

When they find the people responsible for this bombing--and they will--I can only hope that, if there were foreigners involved, we at least did our jobs. But even if we messed this one up, I feel better by not granting benefits to certain criminals, because the reality is there's a whole lot more danger from good old-fashioned crime than there is from terrorism.

Immigration Reform

Immigration reform is the hot topic in politics right now. I work in that field, so I definitely have some thoughts on the issue. Of course, refer to my disclaimer: My opinions are solely my own and do not reflect the opinions of my employer. Also, you should be aware that I follow law and policy in my work, not my personal opinion.

As I've said before, immigration is one topic where everyone has an opinion, but nobody seems to know anything about it. Not only do they get it wrong in movies and TV, even the news gets it wrong. Regularly.

I came into the field with the same understanding as a lot of people. The system is broken, and we ought to allow all the illegals to stay. Now, I know that we have, in a lot of ways, a very good system--on paper. The problem is a question of incentive and will. A person in Guatemala whose life is threatened by drug cartels and has no job prospects has a lot of incentive to come to the United States. An employer who has a shitty job that needs to be done has an incentive to hire anyone who's willing to do the job. And the government just doesn't have enough incentive, apparently, to enforce the law. And because the law hasn't been enforced, the system has broken down. If they had enforced it from the beginning, we would still have a very good system, not just on paper.

So, what are my thoughts now, after working in immigration for over four years?

Immigration Reform

The news says that immigration is the next big issue on the President's agenda. I expected it sooner--like three years ago--so I wrote a series on the issue. The thing that strikes me about it is that everyone has an opinion on it, but almost nobody knows anything about it. If you click here you can find my simple explanations about how the law works now. Here are the individual articles in my Immigration 101 series:

Introduction
Immigrant Petitions
Getting a Green Card
Refugee/Asylee Status and Diversity Visas
Nonimmigrant Visas
Citizenship by Birth and Naturalization

Wrest, TTTW, and Sexual Assault Charges

True Evidence, True Law

There's been a lot of discussion about Leviathan's recent album, True Traitor, True Whore, and what that says about Wrest's current legal predicament. In case you're not aware, a former girlfriend has accused him of sexually assaulting her with a tattoo gun. (Wrest is the sole member of Leviathan, and a tattoo artist.) I don't intend to go into questions of guilt, innocence, truth or falsehood of the allegations, or what really happened. What I do want to talk about is what Wrest is facing, and how his latest album could bear on those charges. It's an unusual intersection of two areas of my interest: metal and law.

Given the charges he's facing, many are shocked at the album's quite frank comment. The title itself displays a possibly misogynistic attitude, and with song titles including "Harlot Rises", "True Whorror", and "Every Orifice Yawning Her Price", that doesn't appear to help matters much. Everyone knows that "what you say can and will be used against you in a court of law". But does this really get admitted into evidence?

Metal Political Endorsements

By now you've probably heard that Dave Mustaine endorsed Rick Santorum for President, which is pretty weird when you think about how he has been critical of Republicans in the past. The best commentary on this issue that I've read was from Jay Leno. I don't watch him, and I think he's generally a has-been, but even a broken clock is right twice a day:

Well, a lot of celebrities are now coming forward with their political endorsements. This week, the lead singer of the heavy metal band, Megadeth, says he's endorsing Rick Santorum. That's what he said. Me, I'm going to wait until I hear what Lemmy from Motörhead has to say.

Giving Blood Is Metal

I just got back from giving blood a few minutes ago. I plan to give as often as I can this year, for the first time. Let me tell you why.

Upon my return to blogging after the birth of my twins, I only hinted at what happened, saying that we were "moments away from 'exsanguination' being more than just a cool band name".* That's quite literally true. After the C-section, my wife kept losing blood. Copious amounts of blood. At one point she lost consciousness, and her blood pressure was so low the machine could not get a reading. The nurses had to hold her legs up to force blood into her brain. Luckily, the hospital's rapid response team arrived, and her doctor was nearby, so she was rushed to her second surgery of that day. Today, she is perfectly healthy.

She wouldn't be alive today if it were not for the six units of blood she received.

I shouldn't have to go into why blood is metal. There are 392 bands with "blood" in their name as a separate word, according to Metal Archives. It goes up to 764 if you also count "blood" in a compound word, such as Bloodbath. But why is giving blood metal?

1. They will check the iron level in your blood, to give you a scientific measure of how metal you are. My level is always quite high.

2. If you're too scared to get stuck, you have no business listening to metal in the first place.

3. If metal truly flows in your veins, as it does mine, then you are transferring a little bit of that metallic quality to some other person. If you could find that person right after they get your blood, and play them some Maiden, they would become an instant metalhead. True story.

4. Anything involving blood is metal. Period.

If you have a job, check with your boss, because they may give you time off to do it. If not, do it anyway on your own time.So, get the fuck out there and start donating. You will feel awesome about yourself. Seriously, you will feel like you could be on a Manowar cover.

Also, know that if you're going somewhere to sell your blood, instead of giving it away, then you're a sellout.

(*Exsanguination is a death/thrash band from Japan, apparently.)

Metal and Christianity, Part 1

Listening to Metal Is Compatible with Christianity

The question periodically comes up: How can I, as a Christian, listen to music that is anti-Christian? Ordinarily, the question comes from a fellow Christian. Recently, I have found that it's not only Christians who see a conflict, but also non-Christian metalheads.

The thing is, I've never seen any kind of inherent conflict. I don't feel a need to justify it to anyone. But the curiosity and confusion is out there, and I've been challenged on it many times.

Basically, all of the objections can be thrown out by one observation: I listen to music. I don't care about lyrics. Anyone who's read my blog knows that, and if you've read it faithfully you know I prefer when I don't understand the words at all. But because sometimes that explanation is not enough, I will try to take up each of the common objections.

The Lyrics Are Sinful

There is no rule which states that you have to agree with your music. Nobody seems to have a problem with the Beatles' promotion of drug use, and they seem to think John Lennon's plea to "imagine there's no heaven" is somehow a good thing. Nobody questions Christian Beatles fans. And nobody questions Christians who listen to today's pop music promoting promiscuity, drug use, homosexuality (or at least lesbian behavior), and degrading not just women, but all of humankind.

The US Can't Do Anything Right in the Muslim World

I just wanted to share a quick thought about how, no matter what the US does, we just can't seem to win in the Muslim world. In Iraq, we get made out as villains for ousting an evil dictator and setting up a democracy. In Egypt, we're villains for allying ourselves with a (somewhat less evil) dictator and staying out of their internal affairs. In Pakistan, we're villains for what? Supporting a democracy! With billions of dollars, no less, which helps to provide stability and jobs.

Doing absolutely nothing isn't an option either. We left Afghanistan alone for more than a decade (after helping them to fight off foreign influence), and look what happened. And we also become villains for not doing enough in Palestine. Nor does anyone want us to stay out completely, because they want to sell us oil, and the bedding set we have that was made in Pakistan is something I'm sure they were happy to sell.

What, exactly, are we supposed to be doing?

Freedom of Photography

Story Here

Courts have long ruled that the First Amendment protects the right of citizens to take photographs in public places. Even after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, law enforcement agencies have reiterated that right in official policies.

But in practice, those rules don't always filter down to police officers and security guards who continue to restrict photographers, often citing authority they don't have. Almost nine years after the terrorist attacks, which ratcheted up security at government properties and transportation hubs, anyone photographing federal buildings, bridges, trains or airports runs the risk of being seen as a potential terrorist.

You may or may not remember my own unpleasant experience on this subject. I can attest that they don't take kindly to impromptu citizen lectures on Constitutional law.

Metal and Islam

A Brief History of Metal's Anti-Religious Side, and Criticism of Its Failure to Target the Muslim Faith

The anti-religious bands of metal today are either idiots or pussies.

For at least the last 30 years, metal music has often treated religion with antipathy. The trend began in the late 70's with groups like Pentagram and Venom, who used images and lyrics insulting to Christianity purely for its shock value. Some fans took it seriously, whether because they thought it was serious or that it should be serious, and truly anti-religious and anti-Christian groups like Bathory and Mayhem hit the scene.

Metal is, with few exceptions, born from nations with a Christian religious heritage. So, it made sense for the ones seeking shock value to target Christianity. But now the idea is divorced from shock. It became an "ideal", so why do they continue to focus on the Christian faith?

I recently wrote a letter to Decibel about this conclusion, simplifying my observations to fit in the space of their letters:

Nergal was just acquitted of publicly denouncing religion, thank God. Freedom of speech is too important. If he had torn up a Koran, he would have faced the same charges, but he'd also have a fatwa on his head. Just look at Lars Vilks and the late Theo van Gogh. Or compare the stories of Melechesh in a Jewish state to Acrassicauda in a Muslim one.

Immigration 101: Citizenship by Birth and Naturalization

I have discussed in this series how people can visit the U.S., how a U.S. national or business can bring someone into the country, how people can come here to flee persecution or just because they're lucky, and how these people become permanent residents. Now, I will discuss how these permanent residents can become citizens. But first, I will discuss why most U.S. citizens are citizens by birth.

Citizenship by Birth

Most U.S. citizens can claim this status by virtue of jus soli, or the fact they were born in the United States. Few countries still follow this principle of law--India abolished it little more than five years ago due to illegal immigrant births inside its borders--but it is generally viewed as enshrined in our 14th Amendment. Some people would like to see us abolish this principle as well, because of illegal immigrants' children. I know I said I wouldn't discuss my opinions in this series, but the rule does serve an important function and reinforce an American value. The function is simplicity: It makes it much easier to prove you're a citizen, instead of having to prove you are a citizen by proving your parents were citizens (and, in turn, you would have to prove their parents were citizens). The value is that America is a place, not a people, i.e., we are not France, filled with French people, or some other place, but instead a mix of people.

The other way to be a citizen by birth is by the principle of jus sanguinis, or citizenship by blood. The way this happens has changed over the years, but in general you are a citizen of the United States if either of your parents was a citizen when you were born. Citizenship through jus soli is permanent, but citizenship through jus sanguinis can be lost if you don't spend some time within the United States by your 21st birthday (there are very specific requirements). This rule prevents us from having a lot of citizens floating out there without any ties to the country, a further extension of the value that America is a place, not a people.

Citizenship by Choice

As a general rule, a person can become a citizen of the U.S. (be "naturalized") if they have been a legal permanent resident for at least five years, have been inside the United States for that time, can speak, read, and write English, can pass a civics and U.S. history test, and have good moral character. They can do this by filing Form N-400. If they are approved, they must swear allegiance to the United States.

Some exceptions do apply. If you are over a certain age and have been a permanent resident long enough (over 50 and here 20 years or over 55 and here 15 years), you can get around the English-language requirement. Spouses of U.S. citizens need only be a permanent resident for 3 years, and military personnel get even looser requirements, especially if they've seen combat (combat allows someone to jump straight from being an illegal immigrant to being a citizen).

Conclusion

I hope this series has helped you to understand the current immigration system, and that it will contribute to an informed debate on the topic.

Immigration 101: Nonimmigrant Visas

Up until now, I have been discussing how people can come to the U.S. permanently. Now, I will discuss how people can visit the U.S. for various reasons, such as visiting for pleasure, to go to school, to work, or as an ambassador or foreign head of state, among many others. These visas generally require application to either USCIS or the U.S. Department of State, depending on the visa type. If approved, the immigrant must get the visa from DOS and then apply for admission at a port of entry, where a CBP officer makes the final determination. Most of these visas require the alien to prove they intend to actually leave the U.S. after their stated purpose for the visit is complete, usually by proof they are maintaining a foreign residence--though most illegal aliens are here because they overstayed their welcome on a nonimmigrant visa.

In the following sections, I will discuss some of the more important visas.

B Visas

B visas are available to visitors for pleasure or for business (but not for working). They can be obtained by application to DOS and are good for up to a year. Visitors from certain countries are eligible for the Visa Waiver Program, which means they can just show up in the U.S. without applying beforehand. This program reduces the maximum authorized stay to only 90 days, and using it limits your right to fight deportation or to adjust your status.

Student Visas

Student visas (usually an F-1 or J-1 visa, but also sometimes an M-1) are issued to students who want to attend schools in the U.S. (The J visa can be for other purposes as well.) The F-1 is an exception to the general rules, because it is not issued after application to USCIS or DOS, but instead obtained by application to the school the alien wants to attend. In all cases, the alien must prove they have all the financial resources necessary to complete the schooling. The visa is good as long as the student is still attending school and isn't violating their status by doing such things as engaging in unauthorized employment.

With the J visa, the student's education is often paid for by a non-profit organization or the alien's home country, in which case the alien is required to go back to their home country for at least two years to use their education at home. There is a waiver available for this requirement commonly used by doctors, which requires them to practice medicine in an under-served location in the U.S. for a period of three years. This is why many smaller towns and rural areas will get foreign doctors who only stick around for three years.

The F visa has a relatively new and somewhat controversial addition called Optional Practical Training, which allows the alien to work in the United States for up to a year to develop their skills after finishing their education. Critics contend this is a back-door extension of an H-1B visa.

H-1B Visas

The highly-controversial H-1B visa is intended for employers to employ aliens in "specialty occupations" within the U.S. for a period up to three years, which can be extended for another three, although exceptions to the maximum may apply if the employer is in the process of trying to bring the alien in permanently. The Wikipedia article explains some aspects fairly well:

The regulations define a “specialty occupation” as requiring theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in a field of human endeavor[1] including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, physical sciences, social sciences, biotechnology, medicine and health, education, law, accounting, business specialties, theology, and the arts, and requiring the attainment of a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent as a minimum[2] (with the exception of fashion models, who must be "of distinguished merit and ability".)[3] Likewise, the foreign worker must possess at least a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent and state licensure, if required to practice in that field.

One of the reasons the H-1B is controversial is that in most cases the employer doesn't have to prove they tried to hire someone in the U.S. before hiring the alien.

Conclusion

This should have given you an overview of three important ways aliens can visit the U.S. I haven't decided what specific issue to look at next, so you'll be surprised.

Immigration 101: Refugee/Asylum Status and Diversity Visas

Previously, I stated that our immigration law doesn't care about who wants to come to the U.S., but instead cares only about who people in the U.S. want to bring here. This is not entirely true. There are two basic ways an alien can come to the U.S. because they want to come here, but they are very limited. These are refugee and asylum, as well as the diversity visa program. The former is intended for humanitarian purposes, and the latter is for the purpose of encouraging diversity in the U.S.

Refugees

Refugees are people who are persecuted, by their government or an entity the government is unable or unwilling to control, because of their membership in a discrete social group (think religion, race, or homosexuality) or for their political opinion. As long as they can prove these things, the requirements for refugees are much looser than for other types of immigrants--Basically, they just have to prove they aren't a terrorist or haven't supplied "material support" to terrorists (the definition is the issue of much contention). The USCIS Refugee Affairs Division (often called the "refugee corps") conducts interviews of these people to determine which ones are admitted to the U.S. If they are, we pay for their flight, and they get basically all of their immigration benefits for free.

Asylees

An asylee is a person who meets the definition of a refugee, but is already inside the United States. They can make an application for asylum by filing Form I-589 with USCIS, or by raising the issue in removal proceedings. If they are eligible for asylum, it doesn't matter how they got here: They could be border jumpers, or have gotten in based on fraudulent documents, or any other way, including legally. Asylees also get their immigration benefits without paying any fees.

The Diversity Visa Program

The Diversity Immigrant Visa is a bit of an odd duck in immigration law. Often called the "visa lottery," it is just that: Numbers are assigned randomly to all the applicants, who must be from countries with low rates of immigration into the U.S. If you apply, you just hope your number comes up by the end of the year (only 50,000 can get in on this program each year, though usually not all of the numbers are used up).

Summary

Now, you know all of the ways an alien can become a permanent resident of the United States of America: (1) A U.S. relative wants them here, (2) a U.S. business needs them here, (3) they want to come to avoid persecution in their homeland, or (4) they just get lucky.

Next time, I will discuss nonimmigrant visas, or visas for people who are just visiting.

Immigration 101: Getting a Green Card

After getting an approved immigrant petition, an immigrant must then obtain a "green card," or legal permanent resident card. This can be done in one of two ways: (1) consular processing or (2) adjustment of status. In either case, the alien must have an approved immigrant petition and must not be inadmissible. They must also have an immediately available visa, either because they are an "immediate relative" of a U.S. citizen or because their number is available under the visa bulletin. They must also undergo a medical examination and obtain certain vaccinations. In both cases, they can bring their spouse and unmarried children under 21 years of age with them.

Consular Processing

If an immigrant is outside the U.S., they will apply for their visa at a U.S. embassy or consulate through the U.S. Department of State. I'm not entirely acquainted with the requirements, but I understand they have to prove they don't have a criminal record which makes them inadmissible and they also have to prove their identity. If the consular officer approves the application, this still doesn't make them a permanent resident. They must go to a U.S. port of entry (by land, sea, or air) and apply for admission through an officer of Customs and Border Protection, part of the Department of Homeland Security. This officer will also verify their identity and can turn them away if the officer believes they are inadmissible. If the CBP officer admits them, they are then a permanent resident.

Adjustment of Status

If the alien is inside the U.S. (either on a nonimmigrant visa or as an illegal alien who is admissible due to asylum status or a previous amnesty program) they can apply to adjust their status to that of a permanent resident by filing Form I-485 with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, another branch of DHS. The requirements are essentially the same as for consular processing, but they must also establish they entered the country legally and have remained legal the entire time they were here, with some room for forgiveness, or they are eligible for a waiver or meet an exception to the rules.

Summary

So, just so we're clear, I'll go over the basic steps again. First, someone in the U.S. (a citizen, permanent resident, or business) petitions for the alien. If the petition is approved, and when the visa is available, the alien makes an application to either a consulate or USCIS. If the application is to USCIS, approval means they are a permanent resident. If the application is to a consulate, then they must come to the U.S. and apply for admission by a CBP officer. Approval makes them a permanent resident.

Next time, I'll discuss some other ways to become a permanent resident which are less common, but also important: refugee and asylum, and the diversity visa program.

Immigration 101: Immigrant Petitions

Not long ago, someone told me about an illegal immigrant's situation. He was someone who had been brought into the country by his parents at a young age. I was asked what would happen if he applied for citizenship.

This type of question, which is very common, is not the question our immigration laws ask at all. Most people assume the question is, "How does someone who wants to immigrate into America do it while following the law?" Instead, our law asks, "How does someone in America bring an immigrant into the country?" As a policy matter, this only makes sense. Why should our laws be designed to help outsiders, when we could just as easily enact laws that serve our own?

The two primary ways our law allows this are (1) family petitions and (2) employment petitions.

Family Petitions

The first step to bring a relative into the U.S. is when an American citizen or legal permanent resident (LPR--a green card holder) files a petition for a family member with USCIS. Usually, this is done by filing Form I-130.

As a U.S. citizen or LPR there are certain types of relationships you can file for, such as a spouse, child, or parent. Only citizens can file for a brother or sister. One interesting fact is you have to be 21 years old to file for a sibling or a parent, so the problem of so-called "anchor babies" is vastly overstated. If jumping the border and having a baby is your immigration plan, I hope you're very patient. (However, having a U.S. citizen child may play a role in deportation decisions.)

To get an I-130 approved, all you need to do is file it, with the appropriate fee, and prove the relationship. Usually this is done with documentation, such as birth certificates or marriage certificates. To prevent marriage fraud, spousal petitions usually also require an in-person interview.

If the petition is approved, all you have done is prove the relationship and allow the alien to apply to become an LPR. That's it--it confers no immediate benefit. And the wait times are very long due to the immigrant quota system. A quick look at the current visa bulletin shows that siblings of U.S. citizens from most countries have about a 10 year wait, while those Filipinos whose relatives filed in 1987 are now eligible. Certain "immediate relatives" of U.S. citizens (spouse, unmarried child under 21, or parent) get in regardless of the quotas.

Employment Petitions

The other most important way to bring an alien into the U.S. is through an employment petition, usually Form I-140. This is NOT the same thing as an H-1B visa, which is for a temporary worker instead of a permanent one, although the two are often confused by people debating the subject.

For most employment petitions, you first have to file ETA Form 9089 with the U.S. Department of Labor. With this form, ostensibly an employer has to prove (1) it has tried to hire someone who is already legally in the U.S., (2) it is offering a wage which is normal for the job in the location where the job is, and (3) it couldn't find anyone in the U.S. who was willing and qualified to take the job. This is, at least, how it's supposed to work. If DOL believes the employer has proven all of those things, it will issue a "labor certification." The employer will then file the labor certification, along with Form I-140, with USCIS. USCIS then must determine whether the alien is indeed qualified for the job and that the employer is able to pay the wage they have offered. These requirements make sense: Why would we let them bring in an unqualified person, when they are saying that the reason they need them is no one here is qualified? And, if they can't pay the wage, then they are bringing down wages of U.S. workers.

Some categories don't require a labor certification. If you are really, really famous for your artistic or athletic endeavors (think Paul McCartney or Roger Federer, although the bar may not be that high) then you can petition for yourself, assuming you intend to continue those artistic or athletic endeavors in the U.S. Also, accomplished scientists can be brought in to do research, and multinational corporations can move some of their important executives into the U.S.

As with the family petitions, approval of the petition only gives you the right to ask to come into the country, and there are quotas on all of the employment categories (the visas for the "really great" people are usually immediately available).

Be sure to check back next time, where I'll go over what people actually do when they get an approved petition, and how they turn it into a green card.

Immigration 101: Introduction

After health care reform, the next major issue our President is expected to tackle is immigration reform.

Everyone has an opinion on this issue, and many people have a very strong opinion about it. However, I long ago realized that most people don't know much, if anything, about our current immigration system. In the interest of educating my fellow Americans and hopefully contributing in my own small way to fostering an informed debate, I hope to explain the basics of our system. I will explore various aspects of the system, including how an alien becomes an immigrant, how they can visit our country, and also explore how they can become citizens (and why many of us are born as citizens). I will do my very best to keep the Immigration 101 series strictly to the facts, without bringing any opinions to the table. After this series, I may discuss opinions.

If you've ever asked "Why don't illegal immigrants just come here the right way?" then be sure to check back tomorrow for an eye-opening discussion.

More Journalistic Impropriety

You should read the article first.

I think this is absolutely disgusting. First of all, this is hardly a big enough deal to write a story about. Secondly, it's one of the most obvious cases of a journalist losing impartiality that I've ever seen outside of local news outlets' treatment of local sporting events (with local teams playing out-of-towners).

But recent accounts of the episode have omitted key details that suggest there was more truth in the essence of Clinton's tale than her critics, and even her presidential campaign, have acknowledged.

I really think it's inappropriate for a journalist to be speaking about how much "truth" (which is obviously used metaphorically here) is in "the essence" of something. I read and re-read this section to determine whether or not they were quoting a Clinton campaign spokesperson. They weren't.

And again at the close of the article:

But according to Casto's account, Bachtel's medical tragedy began with circumstances very close to the essence of Clinton's now-abandoned account: the lack of insurance created a $100 barrier to needed medical attention close to home.

Again, the writer is talking about "the essence" of the story. And of course the writer decides what the essence of it is. The writer decided that "the essence" of the story is not that the woman was turned away from a hospital where she had never been before (presumably or impliedly at the ER) because she wouldn't pay up front. And that she tried again and was turned away again. No, of course not.

It's this kind of bullshit that makes me understand why we need Fox News.