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: |
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.
Fast forward to the Obama administration — On June 25th, President Obama
met with members of Congress and expressed his desire to get the
Comprehensive mmigration 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 igration 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.
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.
Fast forward to the Obama administration — On June 25th, President Obama
met with members of Congress and expressed his desire to get the
Comprehensive mmigration 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 igration 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.
The U.S.A.: Land of immigrants, land of hope?
Part 2 of 2
By Heidi M. Pascual
Note: 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
Part 2 of 2
By Heidi M. Pascual
Note: 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
| (Left-Right) Ramona Natera of UMOS and Carmel Capati lead a lively discussion on immigration reform |
In an effort to understand the various questions surrounding the current immigration reform debate, and hopefully create a united
stand on the issue, the Wisconsin Organization for Asian Americans-Madison (WOAA) members and guests from other community
organizations, including the Latino community, gathered at Yahara Place on June 28 to discuss this important issue, which today is up for
another round of action by the U.S. Congress. The discussion moderator was Ashok Bhargava (former UW-Whitewater economics professor
and ‘unofficial’ legislative consultant to U.S. Senator Russ Feingold) while the panelists were: Saejung Lee (immigration & employment
attorney); Ramona Natera (immigration attorney); Shiva Bidar-Sielaff (UW-Hospital Community Partnerships and Latino Support Network);
and Carmel Capati (immigration, employment, & labor attorney). Attendees asked questions after each panelist’s presentation.
Part 1 of this two-part story featured the presentations of Saejung Lee and Shiva Bidar Sielaff. This last installment focuses on the
continuation of Bidar Sielaff’s talk and the presentations of Ramona Natera and Carmel Capati.
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff
Impact of immigration reform on health care and law enforcement
Bidar-Sielaff emphasized that on the local level, the present immigration system has affected the lives of people interms of health care
accessibility and dealings with law enforcement, for instance. “What if you [are undergoing] that immigration process and you become
sick?” she asked. She said people need to wait five years before they can apply for medical assistance or Medicare, so that those
diagnosed with breast cancer three years within marrying a U.S. citizen who are within the process do not qualify for some of the
government programs. She encouraged her audience to pay attention to how immigration reform intersects with health care reform.
If one gets stopped in Dane County for any reason and taken to the Dane County jail, citizenship or immigration status is asked, Bidar-
Sielaff said and the Sheriff Department runs the name of that person in the USCIS database. “If that person is out of status, the status is
unclear, or they overstayed their visa, they are here undocumented, or they have committed a crime, that information comes up and they
may be subject to deportation from Dane County jail immediately,” she continued. “Remember that they were booked on something
unrelated to their immigration status. So that causes a lot of fear of coming in contact with law enforcement.” This also results in cases of
domestic violence being underreported, because people are afraid to be deported. Implementation of federal rules are not the same for all
counties, she explained, creating a situation where nobody really knows what to expect.
Ramona Natera (Immigration attorney- program manager for UMOS-United Migrant Opportunities Services)
After introducing herself as a fifth generation Mexican American born in Texas and raised in Wisconsin, Ramona Natera talked about
UMOS briefly, highlighting its provision of immigration services to migrant farm workers and immigrants. She is based in Madison
(although UMOS is based in Milwaukee), and her clients come from all over the state of Wisconsin. Natera’s areas of practice are family
law and immigration, and her clients are mostly poor. She said UMOS is targeting people who don’t make a lot of money because it is
committed to helping them. The cost of UMOS services is based on a sliding scale, depending on the individual’s ability to pay. UMOS
provides an initial consultation fee of $25 and then Natera makes referrals if she can’t accept the case such as a deportation, an
employment-based or education-based case.
Natera then discussed family-based immigration or immediate -relative petitions, including when a U.S. citizen marries somebody
from a different country. “One of the things when marrying a United States citizen is that you are going to be under a microscope,” she
explained, adding that there are few remedies available to individuals who come to the U.S. to study or to work, and even fewer to those
who come in without any documentation. “The burden is … on the couple. If you apply before you’ve been married for two years, you will
get a status, but it will be conditional, which means within those two years, they can call you for an interview, they can have an
investigator go and talk to your neighbors … and it’s up to you to prove that it’s a valid marriage, was entered into in good faith, and you
plan on staying married.” However, considering the high divorce rate in the U.S., Natera said that USCIS won’t hold this couple to a higher
standard than the average couple in the U.S. “So there are provisions by which you can remove your condition. Either you are divorced or
you are a victim of domestic violence. So once you become a resident, if you do qualify to become a lawful permanent resident, based on
marriage to a U.S. citizen, after three years, if you’re still married to that citizen and still living with that citizen, you can apply to become
citizen yourself. It’s complicated but it happens and we’ve helped a lot of those cases.”
It is a harder situation for an undocumented, say from Mexico, who marries a U.S. citizen. “Unless they came in on a visa and
overstayed that visa, there’s really no way by which they can adjust their status in the United States,” Natera said matter-of-factly. “A lot of
times, the only possibility these individuals have adjusting their status is, by going back to Mexico and going through the consular
process, and that’s a little more complicated. It separates families; it’s really not an easy avenue by which to adjust, but at this point in
time, unless there is some reform, it seems that is one of their options.”
Natera explained that an immigration attorney provides people with options and explains the law. “For UMOS, it’s very important for
us to educate the community. Even if somebody doesn’t have a remedy at this point in time … there are possibilities for change.”
Carmel Capati (law partner with Saejung Lee-in an Immigration Employment Law Firm; runs the Court’s Interpreter Program for the State of
Wisconsin)
Carmel Capati comes from a mixed immigrant family from the Philippines. Her parents came to the U.S. as students and her sister was
born here. They later moved to Canada then back to the Philippines where she was born. The family moved to the U.S. when she was very
young and she became naturalized later after her parents became citizens.
As head of Wis. Supreme Court’s Interpreter Program, Capati trains and educates judges and interpreters who work in the court. “It’s
not been a popular program on some levels, because there’s not a lot of support for taxpayer money going to provide an interpreter for
people who are undocumented or committing a crime,” she lamented, “but it’s certainly important and the courts couldn’t run if they don’t
have interpreters in criminal or civil cases.”
On the issue at hand, Capati echoed the past speakers’ statement that the immigration system is broken but added an important facet
to it. “What we’re seeing in our law practice is certainly that the system is broken to the point that it encourages fraud — fraudulent
marriages, fraudulent documents, fraudulent everything,” she said. “Our clients, if they’re out of status and they’re not in deportation
proceedings, they are in limbo. They can’t really do anything, because if they do something that might notify USCIS, they might start
deportation proceedings. But then, on the flipside, if they don’t start something, and a deportation order is imposed, USCIS will say, ‘Why
didn’t you file something? You had all this time to file an asylum petition, why didn’t you do that?’ They’re not going to do that because …
there isn’t anything compelling them to do so.”
Fraud is also perpetrated by other lawyers, Capati observed. “There is fraud from our own colleagues, or maybe some less-than-
reputable attorneys, who will take advantage of their clients and charge exorbitant amount of money for doing some stupid petitions that
won’t have any chance of being successful at all. We see a lot of that in our practice. We actually have to fix … attorney after attorney …
mess-ups, after they charge clients $5,000, $10,000, to do nothing. Their clients are in the same situation that they were, only now they’re
$10,000 in debt. We work with a very vulnerable population. They come to us because they don’t know the law. Certainly, even if you’d
lived here in the United States, the laws are complicated, and it is harder for those folks.”
Capati cited cases in the Cambodian community where “fraudulent” fiancées – who paid a lot of money to their “sponsors” — are
being brought over to the U.S. from Cambodia. “Once they’re here, they are deserted by their sponsors. So there is a growing population of
fiancées who came here thinking that they’re going to get married, but they’re not getting married.”
She agreed with Bidar-Sielaff’s observation that immigration can be a very divisive topic, adding that it doesn’t have to be. “In many ways,
it’s a political fiction that politicians use to gain support for whatever side they want to support. I get disappointed with immigration reform
here. I’m discouraged at the possibility of change here.”
Capati stressed that perhaps it would be better to focus on economic development in the countries where people are coming from, so
they don’t come to the U.S. in the first place. “We’re an over saturated population. No one wants us here in the U.S. anymore. It’s true.
Mexico, Philippines, and India are the top countries they do not want more immigrants from. There’s too many of us here I guess. I always
feel that the reform should be in the home countries of origin in the first place.”
Selected Q&A
Q: I’m worried about these kids who grow up undocumented. What’s their fate as they grow older if they stay undocumented?
A: That is a huge situation. I can go on, but we wonder if these kids have no hope. Right now, we can’t do anything but who knows in the
future, so we’re advocating for them, for a change in policy. It’s really important for us to advocate for changes in policy, because that’s the
only way for our voices to be heard. Let’s call on senators’ offices. Sen. Feingold is a big sponsor of the DREAM Act, we all need to call
him and tell him we are behind him on that.
Q: I’m totally in support of the DREAM Act but let’s say it gets passed, and an undocumented kid goes to do all these, don’t they put
themselves immediately at risk of being deported because they have no status?
A: All your life you always run the risk of being deported, even in high school … Although the university will not check, your roommate can
report you to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Anybody can report that you’re out of status. You’re always living under the fear
of being deported. There is no doubt about it. Even your neighbor who gets mad at you for not mowing your lawn, they will just call
Immigration.
Q: Who’s responsible for the application process for citizenship for minors? Would it be their parents even if they’re undocumented, or the
child when he/she turns 18?
A: There has to be a sponsor. The parents can’t if they’re undocumented. The siblings can; whoever is willing to be the petitioner.
Q: If there is no one, how would they do it if they have no one to represent them?
A: They’re out of luck, unless they have a job, or get married. However, the problem is, if you’re undocumented, get married and apply for
citizenship or residency – the fact that you were here out of status to start with – undocumented – makes it very difficult.
Q: Is it possible for some people to adopt these minor children?
A: Yes, but it depends on what country you’re from. Also, it depends what age you’re being adopted. The provisions are very strict. It has to
be an orphan; for example, I cannot adopt my niece who’s undocumented. I can adopt an orphan from Mexico; but he/she has to live with
me for at least two years before the adoption process is final, and has to be no older than 16 before the adoption process is final. So, it’s
not that easy.
Q: It’s hard to become a citizen, but could you become a resident?
A: Again, whether it is through family-based petition or employment-based, you have to have somebody to petition on your behalf. You
cannot just go to the USCIS website and fill out a form. You have to have somebody. Part of the process is that they have to submit an
affidavit of support, which says that person will be responsible for financial support for the immigrant for 10 years. It is a legally binding
contract.
At the conclusion of the WOAA meeting, the group agreed to invite Sen. Feingold or his staff handling immigration reform – through
Ashok Bhargava — to the next WOAA meeting, and together with the Latino leaders in the community, discuss their concerns about
comprehensive immigration reform with him.
stand on the issue, the Wisconsin Organization for Asian Americans-Madison (WOAA) members and guests from other community
organizations, including the Latino community, gathered at Yahara Place on June 28 to discuss this important issue, which today is up for
another round of action by the U.S. Congress. The discussion moderator was Ashok Bhargava (former UW-Whitewater economics professor
and ‘unofficial’ legislative consultant to U.S. Senator Russ Feingold) while the panelists were: Saejung Lee (immigration & employment
attorney); Ramona Natera (immigration attorney); Shiva Bidar-Sielaff (UW-Hospital Community Partnerships and Latino Support Network);
and Carmel Capati (immigration, employment, & labor attorney). Attendees asked questions after each panelist’s presentation.
Part 1 of this two-part story featured the presentations of Saejung Lee and Shiva Bidar Sielaff. This last installment focuses on the
continuation of Bidar Sielaff’s talk and the presentations of Ramona Natera and Carmel Capati.
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff
Impact of immigration reform on health care and law enforcement
Bidar-Sielaff emphasized that on the local level, the present immigration system has affected the lives of people interms of health care
accessibility and dealings with law enforcement, for instance. “What if you [are undergoing] that immigration process and you become
sick?” she asked. She said people need to wait five years before they can apply for medical assistance or Medicare, so that those
diagnosed with breast cancer three years within marrying a U.S. citizen who are within the process do not qualify for some of the
government programs. She encouraged her audience to pay attention to how immigration reform intersects with health care reform.
If one gets stopped in Dane County for any reason and taken to the Dane County jail, citizenship or immigration status is asked, Bidar-
Sielaff said and the Sheriff Department runs the name of that person in the USCIS database. “If that person is out of status, the status is
unclear, or they overstayed their visa, they are here undocumented, or they have committed a crime, that information comes up and they
may be subject to deportation from Dane County jail immediately,” she continued. “Remember that they were booked on something
unrelated to their immigration status. So that causes a lot of fear of coming in contact with law enforcement.” This also results in cases of
domestic violence being underreported, because people are afraid to be deported. Implementation of federal rules are not the same for all
counties, she explained, creating a situation where nobody really knows what to expect.
Ramona Natera (Immigration attorney- program manager for UMOS-United Migrant Opportunities Services)
After introducing herself as a fifth generation Mexican American born in Texas and raised in Wisconsin, Ramona Natera talked about
UMOS briefly, highlighting its provision of immigration services to migrant farm workers and immigrants. She is based in Madison
(although UMOS is based in Milwaukee), and her clients come from all over the state of Wisconsin. Natera’s areas of practice are family
law and immigration, and her clients are mostly poor. She said UMOS is targeting people who don’t make a lot of money because it is
committed to helping them. The cost of UMOS services is based on a sliding scale, depending on the individual’s ability to pay. UMOS
provides an initial consultation fee of $25 and then Natera makes referrals if she can’t accept the case such as a deportation, an
employment-based or education-based case.
Natera then discussed family-based immigration or immediate -relative petitions, including when a U.S. citizen marries somebody
from a different country. “One of the things when marrying a United States citizen is that you are going to be under a microscope,” she
explained, adding that there are few remedies available to individuals who come to the U.S. to study or to work, and even fewer to those
who come in without any documentation. “The burden is … on the couple. If you apply before you’ve been married for two years, you will
get a status, but it will be conditional, which means within those two years, they can call you for an interview, they can have an
investigator go and talk to your neighbors … and it’s up to you to prove that it’s a valid marriage, was entered into in good faith, and you
plan on staying married.” However, considering the high divorce rate in the U.S., Natera said that USCIS won’t hold this couple to a higher
standard than the average couple in the U.S. “So there are provisions by which you can remove your condition. Either you are divorced or
you are a victim of domestic violence. So once you become a resident, if you do qualify to become a lawful permanent resident, based on
marriage to a U.S. citizen, after three years, if you’re still married to that citizen and still living with that citizen, you can apply to become
citizen yourself. It’s complicated but it happens and we’ve helped a lot of those cases.”
It is a harder situation for an undocumented, say from Mexico, who marries a U.S. citizen. “Unless they came in on a visa and
overstayed that visa, there’s really no way by which they can adjust their status in the United States,” Natera said matter-of-factly. “A lot of
times, the only possibility these individuals have adjusting their status is, by going back to Mexico and going through the consular
process, and that’s a little more complicated. It separates families; it’s really not an easy avenue by which to adjust, but at this point in
time, unless there is some reform, it seems that is one of their options.”
Natera explained that an immigration attorney provides people with options and explains the law. “For UMOS, it’s very important for
us to educate the community. Even if somebody doesn’t have a remedy at this point in time … there are possibilities for change.”
Carmel Capati (law partner with Saejung Lee-in an Immigration Employment Law Firm; runs the Court’s Interpreter Program for the State of
Wisconsin)
Carmel Capati comes from a mixed immigrant family from the Philippines. Her parents came to the U.S. as students and her sister was
born here. They later moved to Canada then back to the Philippines where she was born. The family moved to the U.S. when she was very
young and she became naturalized later after her parents became citizens.
As head of Wis. Supreme Court’s Interpreter Program, Capati trains and educates judges and interpreters who work in the court. “It’s
not been a popular program on some levels, because there’s not a lot of support for taxpayer money going to provide an interpreter for
people who are undocumented or committing a crime,” she lamented, “but it’s certainly important and the courts couldn’t run if they don’t
have interpreters in criminal or civil cases.”
On the issue at hand, Capati echoed the past speakers’ statement that the immigration system is broken but added an important facet
to it. “What we’re seeing in our law practice is certainly that the system is broken to the point that it encourages fraud — fraudulent
marriages, fraudulent documents, fraudulent everything,” she said. “Our clients, if they’re out of status and they’re not in deportation
proceedings, they are in limbo. They can’t really do anything, because if they do something that might notify USCIS, they might start
deportation proceedings. But then, on the flipside, if they don’t start something, and a deportation order is imposed, USCIS will say, ‘Why
didn’t you file something? You had all this time to file an asylum petition, why didn’t you do that?’ They’re not going to do that because …
there isn’t anything compelling them to do so.”
Fraud is also perpetrated by other lawyers, Capati observed. “There is fraud from our own colleagues, or maybe some less-than-
reputable attorneys, who will take advantage of their clients and charge exorbitant amount of money for doing some stupid petitions that
won’t have any chance of being successful at all. We see a lot of that in our practice. We actually have to fix … attorney after attorney …
mess-ups, after they charge clients $5,000, $10,000, to do nothing. Their clients are in the same situation that they were, only now they’re
$10,000 in debt. We work with a very vulnerable population. They come to us because they don’t know the law. Certainly, even if you’d
lived here in the United States, the laws are complicated, and it is harder for those folks.”
Capati cited cases in the Cambodian community where “fraudulent” fiancées – who paid a lot of money to their “sponsors” — are
being brought over to the U.S. from Cambodia. “Once they’re here, they are deserted by their sponsors. So there is a growing population of
fiancées who came here thinking that they’re going to get married, but they’re not getting married.”
She agreed with Bidar-Sielaff’s observation that immigration can be a very divisive topic, adding that it doesn’t have to be. “In many ways,
it’s a political fiction that politicians use to gain support for whatever side they want to support. I get disappointed with immigration reform
here. I’m discouraged at the possibility of change here.”
Capati stressed that perhaps it would be better to focus on economic development in the countries where people are coming from, so
they don’t come to the U.S. in the first place. “We’re an over saturated population. No one wants us here in the U.S. anymore. It’s true.
Mexico, Philippines, and India are the top countries they do not want more immigrants from. There’s too many of us here I guess. I always
feel that the reform should be in the home countries of origin in the first place.”
Selected Q&A
Q: I’m worried about these kids who grow up undocumented. What’s their fate as they grow older if they stay undocumented?
A: That is a huge situation. I can go on, but we wonder if these kids have no hope. Right now, we can’t do anything but who knows in the
future, so we’re advocating for them, for a change in policy. It’s really important for us to advocate for changes in policy, because that’s the
only way for our voices to be heard. Let’s call on senators’ offices. Sen. Feingold is a big sponsor of the DREAM Act, we all need to call
him and tell him we are behind him on that.
Q: I’m totally in support of the DREAM Act but let’s say it gets passed, and an undocumented kid goes to do all these, don’t they put
themselves immediately at risk of being deported because they have no status?
A: All your life you always run the risk of being deported, even in high school … Although the university will not check, your roommate can
report you to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Anybody can report that you’re out of status. You’re always living under the fear
of being deported. There is no doubt about it. Even your neighbor who gets mad at you for not mowing your lawn, they will just call
Immigration.
Q: Who’s responsible for the application process for citizenship for minors? Would it be their parents even if they’re undocumented, or the
child when he/she turns 18?
A: There has to be a sponsor. The parents can’t if they’re undocumented. The siblings can; whoever is willing to be the petitioner.
Q: If there is no one, how would they do it if they have no one to represent them?
A: They’re out of luck, unless they have a job, or get married. However, the problem is, if you’re undocumented, get married and apply for
citizenship or residency – the fact that you were here out of status to start with – undocumented – makes it very difficult.
Q: Is it possible for some people to adopt these minor children?
A: Yes, but it depends on what country you’re from. Also, it depends what age you’re being adopted. The provisions are very strict. It has to
be an orphan; for example, I cannot adopt my niece who’s undocumented. I can adopt an orphan from Mexico; but he/she has to live with
me for at least two years before the adoption process is final, and has to be no older than 16 before the adoption process is final. So, it’s
not that easy.
Q: It’s hard to become a citizen, but could you become a resident?
A: Again, whether it is through family-based petition or employment-based, you have to have somebody to petition on your behalf. You
cannot just go to the USCIS website and fill out a form. You have to have somebody. Part of the process is that they have to submit an
affidavit of support, which says that person will be responsible for financial support for the immigrant for 10 years. It is a legally binding
contract.
At the conclusion of the WOAA meeting, the group agreed to invite Sen. Feingold or his staff handling immigration reform – through
Ashok Bhargava — to the next WOAA meeting, and together with the Latino leaders in the community, discuss their concerns about
comprehensive immigration reform with him.
(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
