It made me think about the importance of the day. I retraced my learning about colonial America’s efforts to gain independence and what persuaded the forefathers of this nation to fight for it. And as I thought deeper, I wondered if the younger generation realizes how valuable the day is.

Over two hundred years ago, the country declared freedom from tyranny and asserted the rights to speak and worship. Ability to speak and live your life peacefully as you wish without fear of retribution is of prime importance to each individual. In a perfect world, everyone would have this right, regardless of their citizenship status. The right would be recognized across the national frontiers, regardless of the place of residence.

Unfortunately, ideological differences across the world redefine individual rights within each country. What is considered a basic human right in one country may be prohibited in another. Some rights are accorded to certain individuals only depending upon whether the individual is a citizen of the country. Note that I am not addressing the right to vote but the right to basic needs of living.

Individual freedom and justice form the foundation of the U.S. government. It is the desire for these individual rights that led the forefathers to leave their country of origin and come to “new lands” which eventually became the United States. So, U.S.A. owes its existence to immigrants and should be a trend setter in recognizing peaceful individual rights as a necessity for all humans regardless of their citizenship status and whether or not they are naturalized.

Employment is becoming highly uncertain these days. The freedom of “at will” employment contracts and the only requirement to follow the notice period in case of termination should be somewhat restrained in hiring and firing of a foreign national. Employer should have some extra obligations to keep the worker informed of the immigration case to prevent himself from facing unlawful presence issues. At times employers may consider employee’s personal situation in determining or give prior information so the employee begins to consider alternative employment. But there are situations when an employer conceals or fails to disclose information within its knowledge and the worker has no other recourse but to leave the country at the end of his employment.

Immigration law allows a non immigrant foreign national 15 days to depart U.S. at the end of H1B period but no time at all if he is terminated. He then becomes deportable and so would his dependants because of unlawful presence. Many of these people have property which does not sell in such a short time and have children in school. These reasons were cited in the recent leaked out internal memo to the USCIS director Mayorkas that contained a proposal to extend the H1B grace period.

Often, employers are considerate to these foreign nationals because their life in U.S. is dependant upon their job. But not always. If the employer desires to hire the foreign national permanently it sponsors the worker by filing an employment based immigration petition after certification from the Department of Labor. The process is laborious and time consuming and the employer must file labor certification before filing the employment based petition I-140.

Porting to another employer is possible if the foreign worker waited for a specific period. Porting prevents tying of the foreign worker to the sponsoring employer. It was introduced by the government as an ameliorative measure to prevent exploitation of foreign workers. The employee could freely change jobs and is not required to stay with their sponsoring employer until approval of his permanent residence status.

Porting is not favored by employers and may be a reason for delay in employer filing the required immigration papers or conveying the government approval to the employee. Such a worker then stays with the employer. In the event of loss of employment he is then required to find a new employer who could sponsor him for a new non immigrant status. The entire process of job hunting coupled with loss of immigration status becomes very stressful.

Detrimental reliance under an implied contract theory may provide a basis for the action. In my opinion, filing for the labor certification and not conveying the approval to the employee when his layoff is pre-determined may be bad faith at least in relation to foreign nationals whose presence in the country is determined by their employment. By filing the labor certification or PERM the employer creates an expectation in the worker that he would be hired if the government approved. If at a later date employer decides not to hire the worker for such a position it can’t file a false employment application with the government but it certainly falls short on the foreign national’s expectation. Atleast, let the worker know that an approval of the labor certificate is granted so that if allowed by law the worker could port to another employer. Withholding such information appears spiteful.

Employer’s duties to the two parties under a badfaith contract would be conflicting and so he must pay for choosing to wrong one of the two and here it is the EX Employee. Perhaps one could also argue that the employer took away employee’s opportunity to reduce his losses in lost ability to look up for alternative H1-B employment may be a 7th yr. extension and/or a new sponsor for his new I-140, Employment Based Permanent Residence Petition.

Several Federal Circuit Courts have earlier refused to agree with the government interpretation. But the Texas and Missouri courts struck down the rule as a matter of law and dispensed with the need to go to the Board of Immigration Appeals as a preliminary to seek redress before the court.

Spousal status should not be determined by fate and is not lost by the death of one of the marriage partners. The property law as the most common example recognizes the marital rights of the widow(er) attach soon after the marriage is complete unless dissolved before death of one of the parties to the marriage. Now try explaining this to the DHS.

The courts looked at interpretation and guidance from elsewhere in the absence of a clear legal language. However, as illogocal as it may sound, the Department of Homeland Seculrity passes the blame onto the legalese and wants the Congress to amend the rules before it could shift policy stand, acting like a real adverasary here. It should however be appreciated that the Agency does not wish to continue with deportation or removal attempts in these cases for two years. Secretary Napolitano states that is the most the government could do.

Unfairness of the rule is glaring from the fact that it is either being struck down or the government policy not recognized by courts after courts. In a good democracy, neither the Congress nor the government should force the public to go to courts, repeatedly, to seek redress against its own actions. Failure to recognize and redress the injustice to the aggrieved is despicable whether the reason is preoccupation of the Congress or unwillingness of the government to change its policy. Injustice due to illogical outcomes do a great dissrevice to our society. So, it is only ideal that Congress act now to clear its own mess and help those in bereavement. The political impasse over the fate of the unlawful foreign workers is well known. But a short wise step to comfort and treat with respect those who are legally here and grieving is immediately needed.

It is hard to believe a proposal that tantamounts to “protection” of employment in favor of the U.S. nationals is being adopted in the U.S., country that has been a protagonist of international free trade and commerce and has been a live example of the advantages of open economy with least government interference. Is it a sign of a change in U.S. ideology or merely an effort to politicise the immigration issue once again? Reminds me of the lessons I learnt in my economics class on why protection does more bad than good.

Generally, the reason for America’s role as a world leader in the economy was due to its passion for talent and the freedom it gives the talent to grow along side the employer hiring such talent. The opportunities created themselves within the country and then abroad creating multinational companies. The reason being, international trade and commerce leads to national economic growth and promotes competition that brings efficiency.

It is a common fear, that any protectionistic umbrella generally takes away the incentive to compete and so such a measure for the financial institutions to start with and percolating to other industries in U.S., would shun the human talent from around the world that the nation had welcome, enjoyed and exploited for the benefit of itself and for everyone else. Similar protectionist steps adopted by other countries would be detrimental to international trade and commerce. Recession, being a global phenomenon, an effort to combat it should properly consider its international aspect.

It is a common myth that Hispanic Immigrants don’t want to learn the English language and often restrictionists use it as one of the reasons to oppose immigration of foreign nationals into the United States. Although, far from truth the myth could raise doubts in common minds about whether immigrants in general, not just Hispanic immigrants, are willing to learn English.

I have come accross several foreign nationals, not just hispanics, who struggle to communicate in English or at the least, not able to speak English as freely as they would in their native languge, but certainly would be appreciative of another foreign nationals who had a good grasp over the language and would like to know how to attain the English language skills. All these foreign nationals had one thing in common and it is the desire to communicate their thoughts in English and communicate well.

The other myth is that linguistic skills are divine gift. Everyone starts learning the language their parents spoke ever since birth and additional languages sometime after birth. Our ability to communicate our thoughts in a language largely depends upon the people and the place surrounding us which also influence our determination and effort that we put forth to learn the language of the people to communicate effectively with them. That is why a foreign national who never spoke English in his country of birth begins to speak a few words of English after coming to U.S. and develops what one may call a broken English but their children who are raised in the United States converse fluently in English.

It is wrong to assume that Hispanic immigrants don’t want to learn English or don’t try. As far as I know, all immigrant parents in U.S., give high priority that their children become proficient in English and take pride in the fact that their offsprings speak better English than themselves.

According to the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) a survey conducted in 2006 reports that 1) majority of Hispanics (regardless of their income) agree that immigrants should speak English; 2) more than half of Latinos speak both English and Spanish; and 3) 96% of the foreign born Latinos believe that teaching English to their children is very important.

Often, foreign studets join the “English as a Second Language” (ESL) classes before seeking admission in an acredited academic institutions as a full time student. In Indiana, especially in my town, several Hispanics who came out of the ESL classes provide interpreter/translation services.

ESL classes are in high demand. According to the 2006 Survey, over 57% of the ESL providers reported placing their prospective students on waiting list. AILA reports the wait times ranged from 3 weeks to 3 years and that in New York the waiting list was replaced by a lottery system turning away 3 out of 4 applicants. In my view, knowledge of English is a priority among most immigrants in the United States.