For some, it’s a daunting road.

John Macharia is thinking about applying for citizenship after Christmas. The Kenyan from Duluth has lived here 10 years and his children are U.S. citizens, but he and his wife are not.

Rumors about the citizenship process abound, Macharia said. That’s why face-to-face contact with a citizenship official is helpful, he said.

“It’s always good when you hear about it from the horse’s mouth,” he said.

Joe Kernan, a community relations officer with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services in Tucker, spoke to Macharia and 20 other immigrants in Marietta on Wednesday night.

The American Legion hosted the event and will also host citizenship classes starting in January. It’s in keeping with the Legion’s goal to foster “Americanism,” said Bill Beaudin, commander of Post 29 where the meeting was held.

Kernan said the classes could come in handy. He recounted tales of citizenship tests gone wrong.

If an immigration officer asks if you will bear arms for the United States, don’t roll up your sleeves and show your arms, Kernan said, to chuckles from the immigrants in the audience.

“You need to know that means will you defend the United States,” he said.

Ling Go, originally from China and now living in Acworth, wondered if speeding tickets would hurt citizenship chances.

Not if the fines have been paid, Kernan said.

In general, crimes that indicate a lack of good moral character are the ones that will ruin a chance at citizenship, Kernan said.

Also he cautioned immigrants not to leave the country too often or for too long.  An absence of more than a year can sink a citizenship application, Kernan said. A prospective citizen must show where his loyalty is based, he said.

Esther Wilson, a U.S. citizen who lives in Marietta, attended the class on behalf of her sister, who traveled to the Philippines in May.  She has not returned because she has Typhoid fever and diabetes and has been too fragile to travel, Wilson said.

“I’m worried about her not coming back,” Wilson said.

If a person with a greencard stays outside of the United States too long, they could lose their residency and be turned away at the airport, Kernan warned.

Federal immigration officials have held a series of community meetings across the country this year to educate immigrants on common pitfalls and to demystify the process.

About 8.2 million legal permanent residents are eligible to apply for citizenship, immigration officials said.

At the Atlanta immigration office, 14,456 people took the oath of citizenship in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, according to Ana Santiago, a spokeswoman for USCIS. Nationwide during the year, 1.1 million people became citizens..

A new version of the citizenship test was phased in last year and became standard  Oct.1. It is intended to emphasize an understanding of fundamental concepts of American democracy and the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, more than rote learning of historical facts such as who wrote “The Star Spangled Banner.” The government has printed flash cards and exam materials for prospective citizens.

Pointing to a list of English words, Kernan told the group that those words would be scrambled into any number of variations to create sentences. They would need to read the sentence aloud, without lengthy pauses, to pass.

Everyone opened their study pamphlet to look at the words.

Understanding basic English is essential to participate in civic life in the United States, Kernan said. If an applicant fails, they can take the test again.

Kernan recalled the time an immigration officer raised his hand to administer an oath to a prospective citizen who didn’t understand and thought it was time to give a high-five.

“He was not ready,” Kernan said.

Source: AJC

Related articles by Zemanta

• H-1B demand spike may signal improving outlook for skilled pros (computerworld.com)

Because of the disease, Kremer — a native of Germany — has been barred from becoming a legal resident of the United States. She and her two children are fighting possible deportation, and their plans for the future are on hold.

But that soon may change.

This month, the federal government cleared the way for HIV-positive foreigners to visit the country and apply for greencard, lifting a bar that has been in place for more than two decades.

Kremer, 46, a trained physician and HIV researcher who lives in Miami, said she was relieved that her case might be resolved when she returned to court in February. But she said she also felt a sense of responsibility.

“This is not the end of the story,” she said. “What about all the lives that the HIV travel and immigration ban ruined?”

Immigration lawyers in California and around the nation said the ban had caused families to be separated; foreigners to avoid being tested or to go without medication; and highly skilled workers to return to their home countries.

Since the announcement, Los Angeles immigration lawyer J Craig Fong and other lawyers said they had received a flurry of calls and e-mails from HIV-positive foreigners who now had renewed hope. The new rules, including the elimination of HIV testing for greencard applicants, take effect Jan. 4.

“To finally be in a position where I can tell people that they can come to the United States to visit their family or that they can get a greencard and stay here with their partner is just incredible,” said Victoria Neilson, legal director for Immigration Equality, a national organization that advocated for lifting the ban.

But Mark Krikorian, executive director for the Center for Immigration Studies, said the decision to remove HIV as a bar was based on politics, not science. “It was clearly a politically motivated move,” Krikorian said, adding that the decision could have real consequences — more HIV cases and more costs. “It is extra healthcare spending that we wouldn’t have otherwise.”

An analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that in the first year, an estimated 4,275 people infected with HIV could come into the U.S. at a cost of about $25,000 each.

The ban on infected foreigners began in 1987, when federal health officials added HIV to the list of communicable diseases that prevented people from entering the country. In 1993, Congress made it law.

“At the time, much less was known about HIV,” Neilson said. “People were really scared that HIV status was a death sentence.”

People could apply for waivers, but for most applicants that required proof that the foreigner had a family member in the U.S. legally. Because same-sex partners don’t qualify as family members under the law, the requirement was difficult for many to meet.

Last year, Congress changed the law, and this month, the CDC removed HIV from the list of diseases restricting foreigners’ entry.

Kremer was infected as a medical student in Germany. In 2001, she received a visa to come to the U.S. on an educational exchange program and later qualified for a visa for highly skilled workers. Her original waiver — granted by a sympathetic consular officer in Berlin — was automatically renewed.

But when Kremer applied last year for a greencard, she was denied based on her HIV status, and she and her family were placed in removal proceedings. “I was fuming,” she said. “My whole future was built up to stay in the United States.”

Knowing the change in policy was coming, her lawyers pushed to get her case postponed until after the new year. Kremer, whose treatment is paid for by the German government, said she was thankful to have both medical coverage and immigration lawyers.

“I am concerned about other people who have been affected who aren’t fortunate enough to have attorneys who know how to navigate the system and keep people from being deported,” she said.

Another HIV-positive visa holder, who lives in Southern California, has also had access to an immigration lawyer but hasn’t been able to apply for legal residency.

Dave, who did not want his full name or occupation used because his HIV status is unknown to his employer, arrived from Canada a decade ago as a visitor. He soon found a job and was able to get an H1B visa for high-skilled workers. Now, he earns six figures and manages million-dollar projects.

Dave’s employer offered to sponsor him for a greencard, but Dave couldn’t move forward because he knew how it would end — with a denial. His visa expires next year, and he had started looking for new job opportunities.

“Everything had a finite end to it,” he said. “You were working within certain boundaries. Now those boundaries have been removed.”

[Source: LA Times]

They decide for whatever reason that the benefits of citizenship (voting rights, potential for government employment, ability to bring their families here) are not worth the costs, starting with the $675 application fee. If you are an expert in marketing, as is Harvard Business School’s John Quelch, this fact presents a unique opportunity to view the issue through the lens of pricing strategy in the public sector.

This is a timely issue because immigration officials are thinking of raising application prices for citizenship from the current $675. The last time prices increased, in 2007, applications dropped 50 percent.

Let’s consider citizenship a U.S. product offered in competition with other countries. This country, made strong by immigrants-become-citizens, has an interest in attracting bright and hard working people to our shores. But 90 percent of our 8 million target customers annually aren’t buying the product. A business facing this same issue of underwhelming demand would consider a range of options to boost sales including price cuts (the idea of a price increase would be laughable), better marketing of benefits, promotions, loans, and, in the case of educational products, scholarships.

What should the U.S. do?

“Should the rest of us care?,” Quelch asks on his Harvard Business Publishing blog. “Should we, as a nation of immigrants, subsidize the cost of processing applications in an economic recession to motivate more qualified but resource-strapped residents to apply? Would our democracy benefit if more legal residents joined the ranks of voters, became fully engaged in community life, and put down stronger roots? How can we quantify these benefits to justify a price below cost? Or should we leave the price as is but market the benefits of citizenship more effectively?”

[source: bnet]

Looking ahead to next year, it has become increasingly important that concerns about the economy not deter lawmakers from ensuring that reforms to attract and retain highly educated, highly skilled foreign nationals are included in comprehensive immigration reform legislation. Illegal immigration issues have dominated the debate, but the reality is that without addressing our broken legal immigration system, we will short-change ourselves in the long run. Keeping the United States a welcoming place for talented students and workers from around the world will be crucial to our economic recovery and our future ability to innovate, compete, and thrive in the global economy.

In an economic downturn, the temptation to lower the blinds and close the doors is strong. But in an age when work can be sent to other countries with the click of a mouse such an approach simply will not work. Many studies, and the experience of countless U.S. companies, have shown that hiring talented foreign workers boosts innovation and drives job creation. It also supports local economies. Foreign-born professionals buy cars and houses and pay tuition for their kids. At our universities, they teach our students, helping us develop our own talent pool for the jobs of tomorrow, and they collaborate with our faculty in the sciences, medicine, and other important fields. Turning away people with the skills our country needs denies us a much-needed resource to support our economic recovery. No country can be an island in the global economy – not even one as large as the United States.

Talented people from other countries often first come to the United States as foreign students. By the time they graduate from our colleges and universities, they have spent years investing in acquiring the best education in the world, generally in fields like engineering and the sciences, where they make up half to two-thirds of the graduate students. Some of these foreign graduates want to contribute their skills and knowledge in the United States, but increasingly they are going home or to other countries instead because our immigration system makes it too difficult for them to stay – even though it is in our interest to help them do so.

To keep them, and to attract other highly educated workers from other countries that U.S. employers need to fill key positions, we must do two things. First, the enormous backlogs and wait times that plague the green card system must be addressed, and there must be a better path to greencard status for those foreign graduates of our colleges and universities who wish to stay in the United States and whose talent and skills are important to our economy. Exempting from employment-based greencard quotas foreign students who receive a U.S. master’s degree or higher; eliminating the per-country limits that impede, in particular, Indian and Chinese professionals; and providing additional employment visas for backlog relief would constitute major steps in addressing this problem.

Second, we must maintain and improve the H-1B temporary visa system, the primary way for skilled foreign nationals to pursue employment in the United States. Today, H-1B visas serve as a way station for those who really seek immigrant status but are stuck in the long greencard line for 6 to 12 years. Fixing the greencard system will take pressure off the H-1B system, but we will still need a system that can accommodate temporary, high-skill workers. At the same time, where abuses exist with H-1B visas they must be addressed. We must realize it does not make sense in a global competition for highly educated and talented workers to turn away these individuals, many of whom will go to work for companies in other countries that directly compete with our own.

Any effort to address the question of what kind of immigration system the United States needs must begin with an understanding that the mobility of individuals and ideas across borders has profoundly changed. People today possess myriad options for study, employment, and life in countries across the globe. Many nations are aggressively recruiting high-skilled foreign professionals and students, adjusting immigration and work laws to create incentives for them. People, like technology and information, are crossing borders with unprecedented freedom and flexibility. Our immigration laws and visa policy must catch up to these new realities, and must support a climate that encourages the contributions of foreign talent. In the global economy, our future depends on it.

About The Author
Marlene M. Johnson is executive director and CEO of NAFSA: Association of International Educators in Washington, D.C.

Stuart Anderson Executive Director of the National Foundation for American Policy, served as Executive Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning and Counselor to the Commissioner at the Immigration and Naturalization Service from August 2001 to January 2003.