Immigration Reform Bill (EAS13500)

Title 1: Border Security

• Calls for increased border control technology within the next 6 months before the registration period for Registered Provisional Immigrant status begins.
• Addresses human rights violations at the border by increasing DHS oversight.
• Specifies definitions of "aggravated felony", "conviction", and "sentence" (resulting in less people being removed from the U.S.).
• Helps those potentially facing deportation to defend themselves in court and increases immigration judges' authority. 
• Lessens chances that immigrants will be subject to detention. 

Title 2: Immigrant Visas

• RPI Status: (Registered Prospective Immigrant Status) Calls for 6-8 year waiting period before immigrants can apply for permanent residency and/ or 13 before applying for citizenship. 

         -  Exempts immigrants who came to U.S. as children, graduated from high school, and are
             either college students or are enlisted in the army from the waiting period (DREAM Act).
         -  Makes immigrants in waiting period ineligible for healthcare.
         - Allows immigrants an exclusion from the social insurance programs they support of up to
           11 years by them paying their taxes.
         - Clarifies the renewal process of RPIs.

• Agricultural Program: Paves way for undocumented farm workers to be eligible for Agricultural Cards and workers to change their status to LPR after paying a fine, proving that they have worked a specific amount of time, and passing a background check.
• Imposes fine and requirement of a back taxes payment for immigrants who wish to change their status to LPR (Lawful Permanent Resident) along with proof that the person is learning English, paying their taxes, working in the U.S., can pass a background check, and able to meet 125% of the Federal Poverty Level. After another 3 years wait, they may apply for naturalization. 
• Track One merit based visa system: Used in any year when unemployment is under 8.5%, points will be awarded for education, employment, family in the U.S., and length of residence. Half of the merit based visas will be for higher skilled workers and the other half for lower skilled workers. 
• Track Two system: Allows the adjustment to permanent residence status to people who have been lawfully present in the U.S. for 10 years
• Spouses and children of LPRs, employment based visa applicants, STEM graduates with doctoral degrees, and other doctors immediately granted legal immigration.

Title 3: Interior Enforcement

• Imposes strict rules on employers including the mandatory usage of the electronic Employment Eligibility Verification System (EEVS) which will be in full effect after a five year fade in period.
• Addresses issues concerning immigrants in the workplace and restores employer accountability. Includes protections for employers and employees.
• Streamlines processing in asylum and refugee cases. 
• Increases attention to detention facilities and immigration court personnel 

         -  Removes incentive for employers to exploit immigration laws to maximize profits.
         -  Calls for crime victim visas to include victim of labor law violations.
         -  Addresses that if an employer is found to have violated a worker's rights, no remedy        
            (except any reinstatement prohibited by federal law) may be denied to the worker based
            on his immigration status.

Title 4: Reforms to Non-immigrant Visa Programs

• H1-B: Changes high skilled visa program to have a cap of 110,000- 180,000 annual visas based on High Skilled Jobs Demand Index. Puts in place fines and wage requirements for companies whose workforce has a high H1-B visa user percentage (those with higher than 50% will be barred). 

         -  Establishes authorities and penalties to prevent fraud of the H1-B and L-1 visa systems.

• H-2B: Makes permanent the H-2B returning worker provision. 
• W Visa: Creates new worker classification for less skilled immigrants with an initial cap of 20,000 that will increase to 75,000 in 4 years and can rise to 200,000. Shortage occupation employers may employ outside the cap and W visa holders may apply for merit based LPR.
• INVEST Visa: Establishes a program for foreign entrepreneurs to start companies in the U.S.

http://www.dpcc.senate.gov/?p=news&id=235

Source: http://www.nilc.org/immreform2013wh.html

Hollingsworth v. Perry

Proposition 8: 

State constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Voted in in 2008 by California voters. 

The Case:

     After being denied marriage licenses, two gay couples were represented by Ted Olson and David Boies who filed the Perry case in the U.S. District Court of Northern California in May 2009. 

  In June, Judge Vaghn R. Walker granted a motion to intervene, and in July, he called for a presentation of evidence. The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and the NCLR (Nacional Center for lesbian Rights) intervened to defend the LGBT community's rights, but lawers for the city and county of San Fransisco quickly followed suit opposing the LGBT groups' motion to participate and in August of 2009, Judge Walker denied the groups' intervention. 

   The trial began in January 2010, and in February, LGBT Groups submitted briefs to the court urging it to strike down Prop 8. It was struck down in August, but opposition rapidly appealed the decision. A hearing was held in a Ninth Circuit of Appeals in December, and in January, the panel of judges asked the State Supreme Court to clarify whether California law grants the proponents of ballot initiatives a particularized interest in the validity of a measure they put on the ballot that might entitle them to appeal a ruling that the measure is unconstitutional if state officials do not appeal. In February 2011, California's Supreme Court agrees to clarify. Several LGBT legal groups filed court briefs with the Ninth Circuit Court requesting that the court legalized same sex marriage while the case is on appeal, but the court declines. In April 2011, proponents of Proposition 8 filed a motion to vacate Judge Walker's ruling due to the homosexual relationship he has had for the past decade, but the District Court denied the motion in June 2011. In September, the state Supreme Court heard the oral argument on whether or not proponents have an interest in defending the initiatives they propose, and in November 2011, the court ruled that Prop 8 proponents do in fact have an interest in the initiative's defense. The Ninth Circuit upheld Judge Walker's previous ruling declaring proposition 8 unconstitutional. 

     In December 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the Perry case. They heard the oral argument in March 2013, and in June, the court held that proponents who intervened did not have standing to appeal the lower courts' ruling.

Source: http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases/perry-v-schwarzenegger

Windsor v. United States

DOMA

(Defense of Marriage Act): Federal law enacted in 1996 that grants states the power to refuse to recognize same sex marriages despite their legality in other states. 

      Section 3: States the nonrecognition of same sex marriages for federal purposes (ex: immigration,
      filing for joint tax returns, immigration, etc.). Invalidated June 26, 2013. 

Windsor v. Perry

     Married in Canada in 2007 after 40 years of engagement, Edie Windsor and Thea Spyer lived together in New York City until Thea Spyer died of multiple screlosis in 2009. Unlike with most other married couples, Windsor's inheritance was subject to estate tax as if the inheritance was left to her by a stranger because although their marriage was recognized by the state of New York, the federal government refused to grant the same sex lesbian couple with the same legal treatment received by heterosexual marriages (DOMA section 3). 

     

     Seeking a refund of the estate tax and challenging Section 3 of DOMA, Windsor claimed that the law violates Equal Protection principles of the Fifth Amendment. A second circuit court issued an opinion on October 18th, 2012 stating that sexual orientation discrimination is unconstitutional, and the SCOTUS agreed to hear the case on December 7th, 2012. Arguments took place on March 27th, 2013, and a 5-4 decision, reached June 26th, 2013, struck down section 3 of DOMA.