Among the Fear: Mexican Citizenship is on the Rise

Abogado Aly Latest Blog Post

Abogado-Aly-Dual-Citizenship

In a recent post, we outlined citizenship based on jus sanguinis – the birthright of citizenship. To recap, any child born on United States land is granted U.S. Citizenship. This also pertains to any child born overseas to a U.S. citizen, the child is granted U.S. Citizenship. With the current state of immigration and citizenship in the United States under Trump, documented and undocumented immigrants fear what is to come.

The majority of fear being located in California finds duel citizenship on the rise for Mexican children born in United States territory. Mexican immigrant parents are thinking ahead in the event of deportation. One thing everyone is following closely is the deportation of parents, forcing their U.S. citizen children to be left behind.

Families are concerned with separation, thus their uprising call to action. Over the last year, there have been about 100 applications for dual citizenship, with this year already at a steady 150 applicants. It brings to attention a significant question: If parents are deported to Mexico, shouldn’t their children be as well?

A Mexican consul, Jesús Gutiérrez, at the Mexican consulate in San Francisco states that this conceptual fear is unfounded. Some of the major facts Gutiérrez points out are:

  • If parents are deported, they can take their children with or without documentation
  • Dual citizenship is much easier to obtain in Mexico
  • Mexico already plans to take in a large number of American-born children

Although numerous Mexican immigrants are applying for legal residency, their main concern is the blockage of applications due to Trump’s new deportation regulations. Anyone charged or convicted of a crime, no matter how minor, could be subjected to deportation. During Obama’s presidency, the highest priority of illegal immigrants were criminals. Those in jeopardy of deportation has now expanded dramatically to virtually any immigrant in the United States without legal documentation.

Despite efforts to gain U.S. citizenship, Mexican immigrants are in panic mode. Although a large requirement of documentation is required in the dual citizenship application, only one parent has to legally be a Mexican citizen for the child’s dual citizenship. Marriage licenses, and the children’s birth certificates are just a few of the many documentations required for applying.

What this all boils down to is the quality of life. Immigrants move to the United States simply because the quality of life is better. Education and health benefits are high priority in the minds of Mexican immigrant parents with U.S. citizen children. Through dual citizenship to the United States and Mexico, children under the age of 18 will have immediate access to education and health benefits in both countries.

No matter what deportation and immigration laws have in store for undocumented immigrants, parents are fighting for the rights of their children through a dual citizenship backup plan.

from Abogado Aly Immigration Law http://ift.tt/2omZUmg

Among the Fear: Mexican Citizenship is on the Rise

Abogado Aly Latest Blog Post

Abogado-Aly-Dual-Citizenship

In a recent post, we outlined citizenship based on jus sanguinis – the birthright of citizenship. To recap, any child born on United States land is granted U.S. Citizenship. This also pertains to any child born overseas to a U.S. citizen, the child is granted U.S. Citizenship. With the current state of immigration and citizenship in the United States under Trump, documented and undocumented immigrants fear what is to come.

The majority of fear being located in California finds duel citizenship on the rise for Mexican children born in United States territory. Mexican immigrant parents are thinking ahead in the event of deportation. One thing everyone is following closely is the deportation of parents, forcing their U.S. citizen children to be left behind.

Families are concerned with separation, thus their uprising call to action. Over the last year, there have been about 100 applications for dual citizenship, with this year already at a steady 150 applicants. It brings to attention a significant question: If parents are deported to Mexico, shouldn’t their children be as well?

A Mexican consul, Jesús Gutiérrez, at the Mexican consulate in San Francisco states that this conceptual fear is unfounded. Some of the major facts Gutiérrez points out are:

  • If parents are deported, they can take their children with or without documentation
  • Dual citizenship is much easier to obtain in Mexico
  • Mexico already plans to take in a large number of American-born children

Although numerous Mexican immigrants are applying for legal residency, their main concern is the blockage of applications due to Trump’s new deportation regulations. Anyone charged or convicted of a crime, no matter how minor, could be subjected to deportation. During Obama’s presidency, the highest priority of illegal immigrants were criminals. Those in jeopardy of deportation has now expanded dramatically to virtually any immigrant in the United States without legal documentation.

Despite efforts to gain U.S. citizenship, Mexican immigrants are in panic mode. Although a large requirement of documentation is required in the dual citizenship application, only one parent has to legally be a Mexican citizen for the child’s dual citizenship. Marriage licenses, and the children’s birth certificates are just a few of the many documentations required for applying.

What this all boils down to is the quality of life. Immigrants move to the United States simply because the quality of life is better. Education and health benefits are high priority in the minds of Mexican immigrant parents with U.S. citizen children. Through dual citizenship to the United States and Mexico, children under the age of 18 will have immediate access to education and health benefits in both countries.

No matter what deportation and immigration laws have in store for undocumented immigrants, parents are fighting for the rights of their children through a dual citizenship backup plan.

from Abogado Aly Immigration Law http://ift.tt/2omZUmg

Texas and Immigration ‘Harboring’ Law

Abogado Aly Recent Blog Post

rio-grande-river-1581917_960_720

Texas is home to one of the largest immigration populations in the country. It is estimated that 17% of people in Texas were born on foreign soil. With the state’s proximity to Mexico, many people come into this country illegally. There are over a million undocumented immigrants in the state of Texas. In order to control illegal immigration, Texas has passed HB 11. A federal appeals court heard the state but favored Texas.

 

Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed a bill to increase state police and increase the technology along the Texas border. The state has numerous gang members and dangerous people who are illegal immigrants. This bill will begin the effort to hire extra troopers and other qualified people who can patrol the Texas border. The penalties for human smuggling will be increased, and crime data along the border will be examined. The National Guard will continue to monitor the border until troopers can be hired. More than 250 troopers are expected to be hired.

 

While this bill is an effort to keep the citizens of Texas safe,  U.S. District Judge David Alan Ezra blocked the state from enforcing it, with the provision being “overly broad in scope and potential impact.”  Though Texas public safety officials have argued that the provision is clear in only targeting those smuggling humans, and not illegal immigrants already in the state.

 

This effort will cost over $300 million, so people who are opposed to this bill want to know statistics that mass number of illegal immigrants are really occurring. Texas officials proclaim that more than 25,000 illegal immigrants come across the border each month. These opponents say there is no proof that these efforts will be effective. It is an awful lot of money to spend, so it needs to be successful.

 

After the bill passed, a company sued the state on behalf of two landlords saying their employees were not required to provide immigration status. However, a federal court stated that the State of Texas has the right to pass the bill. The landlords were relieved that the state cannot prosecute them for renting property to illegal immigrants or employing illegal immigrants.

Sources:

from Abogado Aly Law http://ift.tt/2nwfxJk

Texas and Immigration ‘Harboring’ Law

Abogado Aly Recent Blog Post

rio-grande-river-1581917_960_720

Texas is home to one of the largest immigration populations in the country. It is estimated that 17% of people in Texas were born on foreign soil. With the state’s proximity to Mexico, many people come into this country illegally. There are over a million undocumented immigrants in the state of Texas. In order to control illegal immigration, Texas has passed HB 11. A federal appeals court heard the state but favored Texas.

 

Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed a bill to increase state police and increase the technology along the Texas border. The state has numerous gang members and dangerous people who are illegal immigrants. This bill will begin the effort to hire extra troopers and other qualified people who can patrol the Texas border. The penalties for human smuggling will be increased, and crime data along the border will be examined. The National Guard will continue to monitor the border until troopers can be hired. More than 250 troopers are expected to be hired.

 

While this bill is an effort to keep the citizens of Texas safe,  U.S. District Judge David Alan Ezra blocked the state from enforcing it, with the provision being “overly broad in scope and potential impact.”  Though Texas public safety officials have argued that the provision is clear in only targeting those smuggling humans, and not illegal immigrants already in the state.

 

This effort will cost over $300 million, so people who are opposed to this bill want to know statistics that mass number of illegal immigrants are really occurring. Texas officials proclaim that more than 25,000 illegal immigrants come across the border each month. These opponents say there is no proof that these efforts will be effective. It is an awful lot of money to spend, so it needs to be successful.

 

After the bill passed, a company sued the state on behalf of two landlords saying their employees were not required to provide immigration status. However, a federal court stated that the State of Texas has the right to pass the bill. The landlords were relieved that the state cannot prosecute them for renting property to illegal immigrants or employing illegal immigrants.

Sources:

from Abogado Aly Law http://ift.tt/2nwfxJk

Is Small Claims Court Worth It?

Abogado Aly Most Recent Blog Post

judge-1587300_960_720

When someone owes you money, you exhaust all means to collect that money. For many, they end up before a judge in small claims court. Now, you may feel that heading to court is going to resolve your problems. However, there are fallacies in this theory. You can go to court and still be out the money. However, now you have an added fee on top of the money you already lost.

 

You Must Have Sufficient Proof

 

Going to court is nerve wracking. To start small claims, you must pay a filing fee. The filing fees various depending on the area, but the average is between $35 and $100. After the fee is paid, you will get your day in court. You must be able to prove to the judge that this person owes you money. If you don’t have sufficient proof, you are wasting your time. If the other party does not show, then you will win by default. However, they can show and fight. Don’t worry, the judge will typically make a decision right there.

 

Collecting The Money

 

Now, let’s assume that the judge finds in your favor. He agrees that you are owed the money. The other person is giving a judgment to pay the balance. They can pay that day or set up a payment plan with the clerk. Consequently, keep in mind that a judgment doesn’t equal money. It is validation that they owe the money. If that person doesn’t have a job or any means to pay that bill, then you may be out of luck.

 

Many people get the court’s help only to find out that it was no help at all. If the other party has a job and doesn’t pay, then you can ask the court to garnish their wages. You can only garnish up to 25 percent of a paycheck each time. You will need to file each time you want this done. If there are any other garnishments on the paycheck, then you will need to share the 25 percent.

 

In many cases, people find that they still have no money even though they have a judgement. Some people work under the table and try their best to avoid paying their debts. The court cannot garnish what they cannot find. Small claims only handle amounts between $3,000 and $10,000. So, larger amounts will require a higher court. Here are the pros and cons of taking a person to small claims.

 

Pros

 

  • Quick Process That Requires No Attorney
  • Cost Effective Way To Collect
  • Court Acts As A Mediator Between Parties
  • Can Be Easy To Collect Money

 

Cons

 

  • Paying A Filing Fee On top Of Debt
  • Obtaining Judgment That May Be Uncollectible
  • Staying On Top Of The Other Party For Payment
  • May Need To Garnish Wages
  • Can Be A Complete Waste Of Time
  • Amounts Are Small and Limited By State

 

To File Or Not To File

 

The choice is up to you on filing a small claims case. However, keep in mind that many times you don’t walk away with the payment that day. Still, the collections process can be long and drawn out, even though you won.

from Abogado Aly Civil Law http://ift.tt/2oyGKu0

Just The Facts of The U.S. Travel Ban

Abogado Aly Latest Blog Post

Confusion has been swirling in the aftermath of President Donald Trump’s immigration orders. To clear up some of that confusion, here are the basic facts behind the travel ban and what has happen since it was signed into effect.

people-sign-traveling-blur

  • On January 27, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order banning immigration from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen to the United States for 90 days.
  • The ban also blocked refugees from entering the U.S. for four months.
  • The order demands a review of the Visa Interview Waiver Program, which lets traveling citizens from 38 foreign countries renew their travel authorization without participating in in-person interviews.
  • Since September 11, 2001, no one from the seven targeted countries has carried out a terrorist attack against the United States. However, there are three non-lethal incidences in which perpetrators are connected with Somalia and Iran.
  • Immigrants from the seven countries listed in Trump’s ban were also given travel restrictions by a law signed into effect by the Obama administration in December of 2015.
  • Immediately after the order was signed into effect, mass protests erupted at airports across the United States. Lawyers stepped in to do pro bono work for travelers impacted by the new ban.
  • On January 28, 2017, federal New York Judge Ann M. Donnelly blocked part of the order. The following day, a Massachusetts judge issued a temporary restraining order against the executive order. That same day, Trump attempted to defend his order.
  • On January 30, 2017, the State of Washington filed a complaint against Trump, the Department of Homeland Security and its secretary John F. Kelly, and Acting Secretary of State Tom Shannon. The State asked for relief from parts of Sections 3 and 5 of Trump’s executive order.
  • On the same day, Attorney General Sally Yates was fired by Trump for refusing to defend the executive order.
  • In early February of 2017, federal district judge James L. Robart ruled in favor of the State of Washington and blocked some restrictions set forth by the executive order, allowing thousands of immigrants to enter the United States.
  • A week after Trump’s travel ban was partially blocked, a three-judge federal appeals panel unanimously turned down the bid to reinstate Trump’s executive order, citing that the ban would not improve national security and that there is no evidence to suggest anyone from the seven blacklisted countries had committed acts of terrorism in the United States.
  • On February 21, 2017, news broke that President Trump once again plans to unveil a revised version of his executive order to ban immigrants and refugees from predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States. This was confirmed by Secretary Kelly, who claimed that the new order will be a more streamlined edition of its predecessor.
  • Kelly stated that the new executive order will not restrict those with Green Cards or visas from re-entering the United States. It also will not impact foreign travelers coming to the United States at the time the order is enacted. Instead, there will be a brief phase-in period for those individuals coming into the U.S.
  • It is currently unclear as to whether the revised executive order will actually be a ban on Muslims. Trump has previously claimed that preference will be given to Christians fleeing religious persecution.

from Abogado Aly Immigration Law http://ift.tt/2mdchRR

Just The Facts of The U.S. Travel Ban

Abogado Aly Latest Blog Post

Confusion has been swirling in the aftermath of President Donald Trump’s immigration orders. To clear up some of that confusion, here are the basic facts behind the travel ban and what has happen since it was signed into effect.

people-sign-traveling-blur

  • On January 27, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order banning immigration from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen to the United States for 90 days.
  • The ban also blocked refugees from entering the U.S. for four months.
  • The order demands a review of the Visa Interview Waiver Program, which lets traveling citizens from 38 foreign countries renew their travel authorization without participating in in-person interviews.
  • Since September 11, 2001, no one from the seven targeted countries has carried out a terrorist attack against the United States. However, there are three non-lethal incidences in which perpetrators are connected with Somalia and Iran.
  • Immigrants from the seven countries listed in Trump’s ban were also given travel restrictions by a law signed into effect by the Obama administration in December of 2015.
  • Immediately after the order was signed into effect, mass protests erupted at airports across the United States. Lawyers stepped in to do pro bono work for travelers impacted by the new ban.
  • On January 28, 2017, federal New York Judge Ann M. Donnelly blocked part of the order. The following day, a Massachusetts judge issued a temporary restraining order against the executive order. That same day, Trump attempted to defend his order.
  • On January 30, 2017, the State of Washington filed a complaint against Trump, the Department of Homeland Security and its secretary John F. Kelly, and Acting Secretary of State Tom Shannon. The State asked for relief from parts of Sections 3 and 5 of Trump’s executive order.
  • On the same day, Attorney General Sally Yates was fired by Trump for refusing to defend the executive order.
  • In early February of 2017, federal district judge James L. Robart ruled in favor of the State of Washington and blocked some restrictions set forth by the executive order, allowing thousands of immigrants to enter the United States.
  • A week after Trump’s travel ban was partially blocked, a three-judge federal appeals panel unanimously turned down the bid to reinstate Trump’s executive order, citing that the ban would not improve national security and that there is no evidence to suggest anyone from the seven blacklisted countries had committed acts of terrorism in the United States.
  • On February 21, 2017, news broke that President Trump once again plans to unveil a revised version of his executive order to ban immigrants and refugees from predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States. This was confirmed by Secretary Kelly, who claimed that the new order will be a more streamlined edition of its predecessor.
  • Kelly stated that the new executive order will not restrict those with Green Cards or visas from re-entering the United States. It also will not impact foreign travelers coming to the United States at the time the order is enacted. Instead, there will be a brief phase-in period for those individuals coming into the U.S.
  • It is currently unclear as to whether the revised executive order will actually be a ban on Muslims. Trump has previously claimed that preference will be given to Christians fleeing religious persecution.

from Abogado Aly Immigration Law http://ift.tt/2mdchRR

Law Offices of Abogado Aly in Houston, Texas