WOAA discusses Immigration Reform
Tackling the Great Divide
Tackling the Great Divide
Heidi M. Pascual*
Publisher & Editor
* 2006 Journalist of the Year for the State
of Wisconsin (U.S.-SBA)
Publisher & Editor
* 2006 Journalist of the Year for the State
of Wisconsin (U.S.-SBA)
| For more Asian American stories in Wisconsin, click: |
reflects the majority of Americans’ will? What ‘reform’ is ‘just’ for people whose
lives would be most affected by it? Who will benefit and who will be hurt with a
new Immigration Reform Act? How will it affect the politicians who would vote
for or against it?
Background: The history of laws on immigration and naturalization in the
United States started in the 18th century with the Naturalization Act of 1790,
which restricted naturalization to white persons of good moral character.
Subsequent laws up to mid-20th century discriminated against people based on
race/color, national origin, health (including mental) condition, lack of education,
and ‘subversive’ background. It was only in 1870 when African Americans were
allowed to become naturalized citizens. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was
a blatant and open show of racism against the Chinese. Several laws
discriminated against Asians and immigrants of color by prohibiting them from
owning land or marrying Whites. The national-origin quota system also limited
immigration from specific countries. It was only during the second half of the last
century, especially at the height of the civil rights movement and thereafter,
when significant immigration amendments corrected many legalized
discriminatory distinctions that existed in past laws.
lives would be most affected by it? Who will benefit and who will be hurt with a
new Immigration Reform Act? How will it affect the politicians who would vote
for or against it?
Background: The history of laws on immigration and naturalization in the
United States started in the 18th century with the Naturalization Act of 1790,
which restricted naturalization to white persons of good moral character.
Subsequent laws up to mid-20th century discriminated against people based on
race/color, national origin, health (including mental) condition, lack of education,
and ‘subversive’ background. It was only in 1870 when African Americans were
allowed to become naturalized citizens. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was
a blatant and open show of racism against the Chinese. Several laws
discriminated against Asians and immigrants of color by prohibiting them from
owning land or marrying Whites. The national-origin quota system also limited
immigration from specific countries. It was only during the second half of the last
century, especially at the height of the civil rights movement and thereafter,
when significant immigration amendments corrected many legalized
discriminatory distinctions that existed in past laws.
The U.S.A.: Land of immigrants, land of hope?
Part 1 of 2
By Heidi M. Pascual
One of the most talked about political issues of
the day, which divides Americans in a very
passionate way, is immigration reform. The divisions
are very clear: anti-immigration, anti-illegal
immigration, immigration reduction, and open
immigration. There are several questions that come
to mind when the issue is brought up, since ‘reform’
means an improvement to correct ‘faults or abuses’
in our current immigration policy. Some of them are:
What ‘reform’ should our legislators consider that
Part 1 of 2
By Heidi M. Pascual
One of the most talked about political issues of
the day, which divides Americans in a very
passionate way, is immigration reform. The divisions
are very clear: anti-immigration, anti-illegal
immigration, immigration reduction, and open
immigration. There are several questions that come
to mind when the issue is brought up, since ‘reform’
means an improvement to correct ‘faults or abuses’
in our current immigration policy. Some of them are:
What ‘reform’ should our legislators consider that
| (Left) Saejung Lee and Shiva Bidar-Sielaff (right) lead a lively discussion on immigration reform |
Fast forward to the Obama administration — On June 25th, President Obama met with members of Congress and expressed his desire
to get the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill enacted as soon as possible. U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer (chair of the Senate
Subcommittee on Immigration), in his speech before a conference organized by the Migration Policy Institute on June 24, stressed that there
are seven key principles that the American people overwhelmingly support: curtail future illegal immigration; gain operational control of our
borders; adopt a biometric-based employer verification system; require undocumented immigrants to register and submit to a process of
converting to legal status; create more room for family-based and employment-based immigration by reducing illegal immigration;
encourage the best and the brightest to come here, while discouraging businesses from hiring foreigners to replace capable American
workers; and create a manageable, controlled legal flow of unskilled immigrants who can be absorbed by our economy.
In an effort to understand the various questions surrounding the current immigration reform debate, and hopefully create a united stand on
the issue, members of the Wisconsin Organization for Asian Americans-Madison (WOAA) and guests from other community organizations,
including the Latino community, gathered at Yahara Place on June 28 to discuss this important issue, which is up for another round of
action by the U.S. Congress. The discussion moderator was Ashok Bhargava (former UW-Whitewater economics professor and legislative
consultant to U.S. Senator Russ Feingold), and the panelists were: Saejung Lee (immigration & employment attorney); Ramona Natera
(immigration attorney); Shiva Bidar-Sielaff (UW-Hospital Community Partnerships and Latino Support Network, City of Madison Alder); and
Carmel Capati (immigration, employment, and labor attorney). Attendees asked questions after each panelist’s presentation.
Saejung Lee (Immigration Attorney)
In her presentation, Saejung Lee talked briefly about herself as a Korean-born who grew up in Bangladesh and immigrated to the United
States with an F visa (student visa). She studied in a boarding school in North Carolina, she said, but it was her college years in Chicago
which really exposed her to real life in America. She graduated with a degree in anthropology from the University of Chicago (with honors)
and later completed her law degree. In order to stay in the United States and get a green card, she said, she had to get married. She is now
a lawyer whose specialization is immigration and employment laws.
Using herself as an example, Lee said that after college, she didn’t think about her immigration status at first. “Oh, I have to get a job,
then I realized that it’s really hard to find a job without a green card,” Lee recalled. She was hired by a multimedia journalism company that
told her, ‘OK, we’ll provide you an employment visa if you work for a couple of years.’ But Lee was not happy with her job. “I knew in my
heart I didn’t want to work there. I hated the job and I couldn’t imagine being kind of an indentured servant for that environment.”
Her final alternative was to get married, a statement that drew mixed reaction from her audience. “That is the reality that we don’t talk
about,” Lee stressed. “The message that we’re giving is that these highly trained, highly skilled people who come to the United States at
great expense get educated to better themselves, … meet a guy and get married. And that is something that we are ashamed to talk about.
But we really need to bring awareness that this is happening.”
Lee works with highly educated professionals — many of whom have their master’s or Ph.D.s — who carry an H-1B visa — a
temporary or non-immigrant visa. “For the past 20 years, the Senate has not increased the quota for the non-immigrant work visa,” she
explained. “So, it’s a rude awakening for people who come from all over the world, especially East Asia, China and India, to study in top
universities in the United States and of course … have their parents foot the bills. Those people, who are most focused on studies, may not
be as practical and may not be as savvy to think about what’s going to be their immigration status after their student visa runs out. And
many people don’t think about it until they’re forced to. Most of the time, it could be a bit too late. It’s a heart-wrenching experience because
we have very smart Ph.D.s who are in a very difficult situation.”
Lee said there is another alternative for these highly educated people that would enable them to stay in the United States legally — a
“National Interest Waiver” petition.” She cited a case she is working on about a top MIT graduate with a family and two children born here
in the U.S. “This visa, called ‘National Interest Waiver,’ is almost impossible to get,” she admitted. “Fortunately, he’s one of the leaders in
the field, so there’s a good chance, but we won’t know for another year. So it is a very frustrating process, and I think this is not the
message that the United States wants to give to highly trained individuals who really want to contribute to, not only to this society but to the
world. She added that Canada is capitalizing on this issue, by attracting these highly qualified, highly educated individuals. “Right now,
there’s a fast-track to residency and citizenship in Canada for anybody with H-1B non-immigrant visa in the United States. They don’t
require all these hurdles. So many people are seeking countries like Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and other countries, and EU is really
changing their immigration laws (as well).”
Responding to some questions, Lee said that H-1B (which lasts for six years) is an employment visa based on country of origin. Those
carrying this visa from Mainland China and India who applied for a green card in 2000 (priority date) are now up for consideration by the U.
S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). She also explained that because of the economy, USCIS hasn’t even filled the quota. The F
visa (student visa), on the other hand, requires non-immigrant intent, so the U.S. government can kick out of the country these international
students if they overstayed.
“And if you’re Asian, getting an F visa is very hard if you’re single,” Lee added. “You have to have enormous family wealth; you have
to show some sort of intent that you’re going to come back (to your country), because they assume Asian women who come into the United
States to study will marry a U.S. citizen … which is true for me.”
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff (Director of Community Partnerships, UW Health -academic health center, City of Madison alder)
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff’s professional work involves connecting and providing support to nonprofits that serve UW-Health’s patients, their
families, and the community. She also makes sure that her organization stays connected to communities of color because “that’s the group
that traditionally has not had many advocates within the health care system. Bidar-Sielaff does a lot of advocacy for immigrant patient
populations. She is also a highly respected leader in the Latino community and an elected City of Madison alder.
Bidar-Sielaff also came to the U.S. with an F visa to attend graduate school and afterward married a U.S. citizen. She was born in Iran,
grew up in Spain, and immigrated to the U.S. as a student. “I’ve been in Madison for 12 years, and in the U.S. for 16 years,” she said, and
she became a U.S. citizen in 1998.
On the issue at hand, Bidar-Sielaff was straightforward, emphasizing her candid observation of the divisions occurring within the
immigrant communities. “… All of us immigrants and those who care about the immigrant communities do not speak with a common voice
on a policy level,” she said, pointing out the misconceptions and misunderstanding that actually get reenacted in these different
communities.
“And so, there’s a very effective way of pitting communities against communities when we talk about immigration and immigration
policy. One of the things that very often happens is, people would say, ‘Well, I came here legally!’ I can say that, too. I came here legally,
right? I came here with an F visa. The other people didn’t, so they should stay in the line and come. If I apply right now for my father to be
able to get a family-based visa, I could do that because I am a citizen, (although) it would take six or seven years to get his turn, at the very
least. So I could say, I’m frustrated, because it would take my dad seven years, but this other person just crossed the border and showed
up here. And so, I think there’s been a very effective way to make sure that immigrant communities are very divided about the way they
feel about immigration. And they’re divided based on lines of legal immigrants and undocumented immigrants; and among the legal
immigrants, divided among those who have high levels of education who came here because they’re part of the academe or have
knowledge critical to this country, or those who are maybe cab drivers.”
Bidar-Sielaff explained that her social outlook on the issue is that there is a need for all U.S. immigrants to be here, regardless of
status, and that all are contributing members of this society. She also stressed that whatever the differences in viewpoints, everybody
could agree on one thing: that there is a need for immigration reform.
“I think we can all agree … that the whole system is broken,” she said. “It is so complex and so convoluted that there is no way that
people can really figure it out.” She cited the “imaginary line” or the waiting time for visa applicants and how it affects, say married
couples.
“Well, a line of seven years for your fiancé to come from your country is not a line,” Bidar-Sielaff averred. “That’s an imaginary line,
because nobody in their right mind would say that it’s OK to get married at age 27 and then wait until you’re 35 for your fiancé/spouse to
come to this country.”
Unfortunately for undocumented immigrants, there is absolutely no line, she lamented. “Hopefully, what immigration reform can create
is at least some process – now, we can all disagree or agree about how extensive or not extensive that process would need to be – but at
least we can agree that there has to be some process, because those people who are undocumented have children born here, many of
them are in what we call ‘mixed families,’ which means one of them is undocumented, the spouse is U.S citizen or a green card holder.”
She explained it would be impractical for these families to just pack up and “go back to where they came from,” and that they would just
stay undocumented. “If we tell them to apply a policy that is not going to be feasible in their life circumstances, change is not going to
happen,” Bidar-Sielaff said with certainty. “So I think this is really going to be a critical piece of the immigration reform, because I can
guarantee you that the attempt is going to be to divide immigrant communities across the lines that I just mentioned – educated vs.
uneducated, undocumented vs. documented, whatever it is. And our strength is in our numbers, and our strength is saying that whatever
we are, we are part of the fabric of this nation and that we are contributing members of the communities that we are part of.”
Next and final installment of this article will continue the panel discussion by Shiva Bidar-Sielaff, Ramona Natera, and Carmel Capati.
to get the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill enacted as soon as possible. U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer (chair of the Senate
Subcommittee on Immigration), in his speech before a conference organized by the Migration Policy Institute on June 24, stressed that there
are seven key principles that the American people overwhelmingly support: curtail future illegal immigration; gain operational control of our
borders; adopt a biometric-based employer verification system; require undocumented immigrants to register and submit to a process of
converting to legal status; create more room for family-based and employment-based immigration by reducing illegal immigration;
encourage the best and the brightest to come here, while discouraging businesses from hiring foreigners to replace capable American
workers; and create a manageable, controlled legal flow of unskilled immigrants who can be absorbed by our economy.
In an effort to understand the various questions surrounding the current immigration reform debate, and hopefully create a united stand on
the issue, members of the Wisconsin Organization for Asian Americans-Madison (WOAA) and guests from other community organizations,
including the Latino community, gathered at Yahara Place on June 28 to discuss this important issue, which is up for another round of
action by the U.S. Congress. The discussion moderator was Ashok Bhargava (former UW-Whitewater economics professor and legislative
consultant to U.S. Senator Russ Feingold), and the panelists were: Saejung Lee (immigration & employment attorney); Ramona Natera
(immigration attorney); Shiva Bidar-Sielaff (UW-Hospital Community Partnerships and Latino Support Network, City of Madison Alder); and
Carmel Capati (immigration, employment, and labor attorney). Attendees asked questions after each panelist’s presentation.
Saejung Lee (Immigration Attorney)
In her presentation, Saejung Lee talked briefly about herself as a Korean-born who grew up in Bangladesh and immigrated to the United
States with an F visa (student visa). She studied in a boarding school in North Carolina, she said, but it was her college years in Chicago
which really exposed her to real life in America. She graduated with a degree in anthropology from the University of Chicago (with honors)
and later completed her law degree. In order to stay in the United States and get a green card, she said, she had to get married. She is now
a lawyer whose specialization is immigration and employment laws.
Using herself as an example, Lee said that after college, she didn’t think about her immigration status at first. “Oh, I have to get a job,
then I realized that it’s really hard to find a job without a green card,” Lee recalled. She was hired by a multimedia journalism company that
told her, ‘OK, we’ll provide you an employment visa if you work for a couple of years.’ But Lee was not happy with her job. “I knew in my
heart I didn’t want to work there. I hated the job and I couldn’t imagine being kind of an indentured servant for that environment.”
Her final alternative was to get married, a statement that drew mixed reaction from her audience. “That is the reality that we don’t talk
about,” Lee stressed. “The message that we’re giving is that these highly trained, highly skilled people who come to the United States at
great expense get educated to better themselves, … meet a guy and get married. And that is something that we are ashamed to talk about.
But we really need to bring awareness that this is happening.”
Lee works with highly educated professionals — many of whom have their master’s or Ph.D.s — who carry an H-1B visa — a
temporary or non-immigrant visa. “For the past 20 years, the Senate has not increased the quota for the non-immigrant work visa,” she
explained. “So, it’s a rude awakening for people who come from all over the world, especially East Asia, China and India, to study in top
universities in the United States and of course … have their parents foot the bills. Those people, who are most focused on studies, may not
be as practical and may not be as savvy to think about what’s going to be their immigration status after their student visa runs out. And
many people don’t think about it until they’re forced to. Most of the time, it could be a bit too late. It’s a heart-wrenching experience because
we have very smart Ph.D.s who are in a very difficult situation.”
Lee said there is another alternative for these highly educated people that would enable them to stay in the United States legally — a
“National Interest Waiver” petition.” She cited a case she is working on about a top MIT graduate with a family and two children born here
in the U.S. “This visa, called ‘National Interest Waiver,’ is almost impossible to get,” she admitted. “Fortunately, he’s one of the leaders in
the field, so there’s a good chance, but we won’t know for another year. So it is a very frustrating process, and I think this is not the
message that the United States wants to give to highly trained individuals who really want to contribute to, not only to this society but to the
world. She added that Canada is capitalizing on this issue, by attracting these highly qualified, highly educated individuals. “Right now,
there’s a fast-track to residency and citizenship in Canada for anybody with H-1B non-immigrant visa in the United States. They don’t
require all these hurdles. So many people are seeking countries like Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and other countries, and EU is really
changing their immigration laws (as well).”
Responding to some questions, Lee said that H-1B (which lasts for six years) is an employment visa based on country of origin. Those
carrying this visa from Mainland China and India who applied for a green card in 2000 (priority date) are now up for consideration by the U.
S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). She also explained that because of the economy, USCIS hasn’t even filled the quota. The F
visa (student visa), on the other hand, requires non-immigrant intent, so the U.S. government can kick out of the country these international
students if they overstayed.
“And if you’re Asian, getting an F visa is very hard if you’re single,” Lee added. “You have to have enormous family wealth; you have
to show some sort of intent that you’re going to come back (to your country), because they assume Asian women who come into the United
States to study will marry a U.S. citizen … which is true for me.”
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff (Director of Community Partnerships, UW Health -academic health center, City of Madison alder)
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff’s professional work involves connecting and providing support to nonprofits that serve UW-Health’s patients, their
families, and the community. She also makes sure that her organization stays connected to communities of color because “that’s the group
that traditionally has not had many advocates within the health care system. Bidar-Sielaff does a lot of advocacy for immigrant patient
populations. She is also a highly respected leader in the Latino community and an elected City of Madison alder.
Bidar-Sielaff also came to the U.S. with an F visa to attend graduate school and afterward married a U.S. citizen. She was born in Iran,
grew up in Spain, and immigrated to the U.S. as a student. “I’ve been in Madison for 12 years, and in the U.S. for 16 years,” she said, and
she became a U.S. citizen in 1998.
On the issue at hand, Bidar-Sielaff was straightforward, emphasizing her candid observation of the divisions occurring within the
immigrant communities. “… All of us immigrants and those who care about the immigrant communities do not speak with a common voice
on a policy level,” she said, pointing out the misconceptions and misunderstanding that actually get reenacted in these different
communities.
“And so, there’s a very effective way of pitting communities against communities when we talk about immigration and immigration
policy. One of the things that very often happens is, people would say, ‘Well, I came here legally!’ I can say that, too. I came here legally,
right? I came here with an F visa. The other people didn’t, so they should stay in the line and come. If I apply right now for my father to be
able to get a family-based visa, I could do that because I am a citizen, (although) it would take six or seven years to get his turn, at the very
least. So I could say, I’m frustrated, because it would take my dad seven years, but this other person just crossed the border and showed
up here. And so, I think there’s been a very effective way to make sure that immigrant communities are very divided about the way they
feel about immigration. And they’re divided based on lines of legal immigrants and undocumented immigrants; and among the legal
immigrants, divided among those who have high levels of education who came here because they’re part of the academe or have
knowledge critical to this country, or those who are maybe cab drivers.”
Bidar-Sielaff explained that her social outlook on the issue is that there is a need for all U.S. immigrants to be here, regardless of
status, and that all are contributing members of this society. She also stressed that whatever the differences in viewpoints, everybody
could agree on one thing: that there is a need for immigration reform.
“I think we can all agree … that the whole system is broken,” she said. “It is so complex and so convoluted that there is no way that
people can really figure it out.” She cited the “imaginary line” or the waiting time for visa applicants and how it affects, say married
couples.
“Well, a line of seven years for your fiancé to come from your country is not a line,” Bidar-Sielaff averred. “That’s an imaginary line,
because nobody in their right mind would say that it’s OK to get married at age 27 and then wait until you’re 35 for your fiancé/spouse to
come to this country.”
Unfortunately for undocumented immigrants, there is absolutely no line, she lamented. “Hopefully, what immigration reform can create
is at least some process – now, we can all disagree or agree about how extensive or not extensive that process would need to be – but at
least we can agree that there has to be some process, because those people who are undocumented have children born here, many of
them are in what we call ‘mixed families,’ which means one of them is undocumented, the spouse is U.S citizen or a green card holder.”
She explained it would be impractical for these families to just pack up and “go back to where they came from,” and that they would just
stay undocumented. “If we tell them to apply a policy that is not going to be feasible in their life circumstances, change is not going to
happen,” Bidar-Sielaff said with certainty. “So I think this is really going to be a critical piece of the immigration reform, because I can
guarantee you that the attempt is going to be to divide immigrant communities across the lines that I just mentioned – educated vs.
uneducated, undocumented vs. documented, whatever it is. And our strength is in our numbers, and our strength is saying that whatever
we are, we are part of the fabric of this nation and that we are contributing members of the communities that we are part of.”
Next and final installment of this article will continue the panel discussion by Shiva Bidar-Sielaff, Ramona Natera, and Carmel Capati.
(Above) Ashok Bhargava
moderates the panel discussion
on Immigration Reform at WOAA
spring meeting
moderates the panel discussion
on Immigration Reform at WOAA
spring meeting
(Above) WOAA panelists with Bhargava (l-r) Carmel Capati,
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff, Ramona Natera. and Saejung Lee
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff, Ramona Natera. and Saejung Lee
