What Does Immigration Through Investment Really Mean?

After reading an article on yahoo this morning, which can be found at http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/111069/citizenship-for-sale, and more importantly after reading the comments which followed the article, I decided that I must shed some light on the whole situation concerning investors and their road to US citizenship. Let me first start by saying that it is not "easy" to qualify for an investment visa (known as the EB5).  Not only must an individual contribute a large sum of money (not less than $500,000) into the economy, but they must also create a certain number of jobs. What is all the complaining about then?  Isn't that great for our economy? I mean let me lay this out in layman terms:  We get smart, educated people, who have, most likely, worked very hard to earn their money, which by the way they now want to invest into OUR economy AND which will in turn provide more jobs in the  US, which will provide more revenue and income, and thereby creating more taxpaying residents. Considering our economic situation, I say... bring it on, and the more the better. We need smart, savvy business people in our Country.  I would much rather see people of such caliber, who have achieved something and are able to support our economy coming to this country, then those who cross the border and soon or a later will likely become a drain on our economy. 

I truly hope that someday, people will attempt to educate themselves, prior to posting comments which make them look less than knowledgeable and unaware of all the facts. I mean, one person wrote a comment, and I quote  "How about opening up more opportunity for Americans to open businesses...".  Who is stopping him from opening his own business?  It is comments like that which make me, not only angry that someone, who obviously has no idea about... well, anything, has a right to comment on such an important topic, which is obviously out of his league.  Perhaps, prior to being able to post a comment to some serious news article, one should take a short survey to evaluate his overall competency and education level.  Ok, I may be going to far with that, but why should we have to read such garbage? I am all for debates and controversy, but only when there is merit to them.

As an attorney, let me say this to all of those out there who believe that those with money can "buy" citizenship: It is not that easy and it involves a lot of hard work on the part of the individual who is considering investing money into the economy.  Nonetheless, with perseverance, it is doable, and last year we had a just less than 1,000 investor visas approved. I truly hope that we will see an increase in this number in the coming year, as I believe America can only benefit from those people. 

Vaccine Litigation Reaches Supreme Court

Those of us who have children, and perhaps even those that do not, have certainly heard about the disputes as to whether or not vaccines lead to autism in some kids.  These discussions have been going on for several years, and to date, I am still not convinced there is conclusive evidence linking certain vaccines to development of autism. Although, I must admit that such discussions have made me very skeptical and cautious when it comes to vaccinating my own child, and I await more conclusive evidence on the matter. 

Although, I am not sure when we will be able to get more conclusive evidence on the matter, I do know, that Today, October 12, 2010, Supreme Court of the United States will hear arguments as to the safety and implications of vaccines and how such claims shall be decided.  This case will challenge the law which passed in 1986, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. This act was established to safeguard manufacturers from potential lawsuits involving vaccines. In essence, all cases involving claims made against the manufacturer, for injuries which were allegedly suffered as a result of certain vaccines were to proceed in an alternative legal system known as the "vaccine court".  Moreover, the only claims that could proceed in "vaccine court" were those where injuries sustained were among those that were officially recognized as being caused by a particular vaccine. In essence, what that meant was that if a child, after receiving vaccine became paralyzed, and paralysis was not one of the recognized causes by a particular vaccine which that child received, no claim can be brought against the manufacturer. Parents of injured children faced a lot of hurdles that they had to overcome to bring such an action.  I have to admit, I am appalled that it took 24 years to challenge this Act.  As a mother, it is disgusting to know that our children were not being protected and instead of doing everything we can to safeguard our little ones and provide for them a safe environment (which includes safe medications and vaccines), the system turned its back on no one else but our children, leaving them vulnerable and unprotected. As an attorney, I think it is shameful that our legal system, which shall be equal for all is anything but equal.  We protect huge manufacturing companies at the expense of our children. The argument that was made when the Vaccine Act was passed, and the one that is still being made today by the supporters of the Act, is that if manufacturers are held accountable for each and every incident involving vaccines, it would not be economically feasible for them to continue to make the vaccines and litigation would spin out of control.  Do I agree?  Well, yes and no. I agree that in today's world, people often look for others to blame and if they see an opportunity to receive compensation, they will likely go for it.  And I do not believe that manufacturers should have to pay for something that would have happened despite their medication.  There are some children who would have developed autism or perhaps some other disability despite getting a particular vaccine.  However, parents often refuse to accept that fact and find all possible ways to blame something external for such misfortune.  It is part of human nature.  However, manufacturers shall not be dragged in and out of court as a result of such a coincidence. On the other hand, if parents, with the help of medical experts can establish that the vaccine was absolutely the cause of autism, or some other disability, then by all means such case shall proceed to trial.  Moreover, if it can be established that manufacturer knew about the possible hazards and side effects of their medications, they should be responsible for punitive damages as well, to compensate for their gross-negligence. 

I await the decision from the Supreme Court about this very serious issue, that affects a lot of parents.  However, even more important than this pending case, is the research that is being conducted to determine the cause and effect of various vaccines on our children.  Once the research proves conclusively one way or another, it will likely in and of itself solve a lot of problems from the legal standpoint. 

To read more about this go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/health/12vaccine.html?_r=1&ref=business

Immigration Attorneys Arrested in California

3 California attorneys were arrested and sentenced to prison as a result of immigration fraud. The attorneys are said to have orchestrated hundreds of false asylum claims. They mostly dealt with people of Romanian and Indian descent and filed hundreds of asylum applications containing fictitious stories of persecution, including false arrests, detention, torture, and even rape. Applications were also, oftentimes, supported by fraudulent and counterfeit medical records and affidavits. Some of the same stories were used and reused for various people.

For those of you who do not know, to be eligible for asylum, a person must show a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country.  And those attorneys, basically "created" those fears for them in order, to make money and file their asylum claims.

I have to say to all those who ever asked me why so many asylum claims get denied... This is WHY... because of people, sometimes even attorneys, who file hundreds of petitions based on fraudulent evidence.  That is exactly why all asylum applications are heavily scrutinized and it has become more and more difficult to get asylum status. As a result of instances like that, individuals, who do in fact suffer in their home countries are often denied asylum status, or in the alternative, must meet such an extraordinary high standard in order to prove that they were in fact a victim of persecution in their home country.

These attorneys were financially fined and sentenced to prison, with terms ranging from 30 months to 108 months.