State of the Unions 2010 as it Relates to Border Issues

I found myself frustrated with the rhetoric coming from the 2010 State of the Union Address this past week. The United States, reeling from one of the worst recessions in history, has tried to shore up the borders, circle the wagons, and focus on improving their economy in a time when so many are struggling.

I have no problem with them doing that. I would expect, in the same situation, that Canada would do the same and that our government would protect our people.

But President Obama made some interesting statements regarding job creation and immigration. He stated in his address:

Third, we need to export more of our goods. Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America. To help meet this goal, we're launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security.

This may be music to the ears of Americans, but it puts a more sour taste in the mouths of other countries…especially Canada which has been impacted by the recent “Buy American” programs and sentiment perpetrated by the US government. So not only has Obama closed the door to Canadian business, he wants to see countries like Canada take more of their exports (and we’ve seen already that Canada holds the #1 and #2 rank for export partner to the various states).

The other statement that I cringed at was…

And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system -- to secure our borders and enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation.

First of all…OUCH! The President said the immigration system is broken. That’s a strong statement to make. But its the part where he talks about ensuring that “everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation.”

If you’ve been reading this blog since the beginning, you know that this exists due to issues getting across to do some speaking. Since then, other incidents have popped up that highlight…well, that highlights the broken immigration system that the President referred to. But it also highlighted something else: that the current rules fly in the face of what Obama wishes for immigration. If a Canadian can’t speak at a conference not because he/she is getting paid but because attendees are paying to register, how are those established rules helping to “contribute to [the US] economy and enrich [the US]”?! That’s the problem, they don’t. And that’s the issue with these two statements, made at different stages of the address, but being opposed to each other nonetheless.

You can’t try and push exports through your borders and yet persist outdated immigration rules that are part of a broken immigration system (as Obama referred to it as). If President Obama is serious about immigration reform, specifically on the business and trade side, then there’s only one logical step: renegotiate NAFTA. Call Canada and Mexico to the table and talk about what needs to change, what improvements can be made, and how can we get North America back to being a power-house economical continent.

Until we get past protectionism though, that can’t happen.

A Year Later, The Question Still Remains

I started this blog after an experience trying to cross the border into the US for a speaking opportunity. While I made some headway, I never really did get a full, clear answer on what the rules are. My mitigation policy: don’t speak in the US. Without knowing all the rules, and with the rules not being readily available and easily accessible, it just wasn’t worth the risk. As it turns out I’ve had an amazing year travelling and speaking within Canada, and my career and opportunities definitely were not diminished because I restricted myself to Canada…quite the opposite actually.

However, I’ve refocused on determining once and for all what the rules are around foreigners (specifically Canadians) performing speaking engagements within the US. The catalyst was the recent experience of a fellow Canadian (and Winnipegger) who had an almost carbon-copy experience, but with a new twist.

Lyndsay was scheduled to speak at a conference in Las Vegas. She wasn’t getting paid by the conference aside from expenses but the attendees were paying (this is important, as you’ll see in a second). She was questioned about her activities and was informed that foreigners were not allowed to speak at a conference where attendees were paying, even if they weren’t receiving an honorarium. As she writes:

I was told, people CANNOT go to the United States to speak at a conference that people pay to attend. The supervisor seemed aghast when I said that I had done it many times before – he likened it to admitting I’ve done these horrible fraudulent activities in the past. He informed me that I was lucky I’d never been caught before, and that the other hundreds and thousands of Canadians who go to the US on a daily basis to speak are also “lucky” they’d never been caught.

Well this is a new twist! In my attempts to cross to speak the issue was always that I was going to receive money that an American could have received, but nothing was said of the attendees paying. This might be why events like Code Camps (which are free for attendees and provide no coverage for speakers) was never an issue for me to attend.

Lyndsay started doing the same things that I did: finding out how this horrible mistake could be made. After all, like the border officer said to her, there are hundreds and thousands of Canadians that go to the US to speak all the time. Could it really be that they were just “lucky” that they didn’t get caught?

She found the same US State Dept document that I did, which contains the following regarding a foreign lecturer or speaker:

No salary or income from a U.S. based company/entity, other than expenses incidental to the visit. If honorarium will be received, activities can last no longer than nine days at any single institution or organization; payment must be offered by an institution or organization described in INA 212(g); honorarium is for services conducted for the benefit of the institution or entity; and visa applicant will not have accepted such payment or expenses from more than five institutions or organizations over the last six months.

The problem is in that one line: payment must be offered by an institution or organization described in INA 212(g). INA stands for the Immigration and Nationality Act and is key legislation as it relates to US citizenship and immigration. When we go to section 212 of the act on the USCIS website, we see there is no 212(g)! in fact, doing a search of the word “organization” just brings up references in relation to terrorist organizations and “institution” references it in a correctional institution context. This leads me to think that the US State Dept. website is out of date or inaccurate.

Trying to navigate through the Canadian-focussed sites on the US government’s web is frustrating and pointless. The consular service site for Canada has no easily found information. A site search for “lecturer” returns no results. And as we’ve already seen, the US Dept of State site is suspect. Luckily, there is information out there that helps lead us in the right direction. We just have to look on the website for the US Embassy in London.

Here we have more detailed information regarding speaking/lecturing. To summarize, it says if you’re speaking in the US and not collecting an honorarium and just having expenses covered then a B-1 is fine. However, if you are collecting an honorarium then there’s one glaring criteria that must be met:

The institution is a nonprofit research organization or a governmental research organization, or an institution of higher education, or a related or affiliated nonprofit entity.

Now we’re getting somewhere! So, assuming that these rules are applied to Canadians and UK citizens alike, it suggests speakers receiving an honorarium can only speak for non-profit, government, or educational organizations. Speaking for any other organization will require a different visa than the B-1 (an H-1 for instance).

Unfortunately, this verbiage doesn’t address the issue of not getting paid to speak at an event where attendees are paying to attend. But its a step in the right direction.

As I mentioned in my previous post, there’s a new email address set up by DHS to handle general inquiries. I’ll be sending off an email to them this week asking for clarification on the rules as well as references to the related acts and legislation. It’s time to answer this speaker question once and for all.

USCIS General Inquiry Mailbox

Have a question about working in the US, immigrating to the US, or related areas? Well now an answer is an email away!

USCIS Launches Immigration Inquiry Mailbox for Canadians
WASHINGTON— U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced the creation of a general inquiry mailbox for customers in Canada. Currently Canadians cannot access the National Customer Service Center through the 1-800 number to ask about general immigration questions. Canadian customers may now inquire about general immigration information at USCIS.Canada@dhs.gov in addition to obtaining immigration information at www.uscis.gov.

As you’ll see in some upcoming posts, I’m going to test out this new email service to see how much value it really provides for those looking to navigate the confusing landscape of US government websites.

Have AIDS, Can Travel

Back in the 80’s, AIDS was a new and scary disease. Well, its still scary; but we know much more about it now, have treatments available, and the fear that paralyzed us back then has subsided.

The United States, in response to that fear, implemented a ban on foreigners who were HIV positive from entering the country. On January 4th 2010, that 22 year ban was lifted.

From TimesLive.co.za’s article on the subject, quoting the US State Department:

Additionally, HIV testing will no longer be required in medical examinations for visa purposes. Furthermore, applicants who are HIV-positive will no longer require waiver processing by the department of homeland security.

For Canadians afflicted with HIV, this means a new era of travel to our neighbours to the south.