DREAMER UPDATE: N. Rappaport Says 47 Mi. Of “Trump‘s Wall” Is An Acceptable Price For Dems To Pay To Save “Dreamers” — CNN’S Tal Kopan Says GOP House Might Go With Own “Dreamer Bill” (Once Again) Excluding Dems!

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/354585-democrats-take-trumps-daca-deal-to-save-some-from-deportation

Nolan writes in The Hill:

“Realistically, it is not going to be possible to work with Trump on a permanent DACA program without providing the funds he needs to at least start the construction of his wall, but this does not have to be a deal breaker.

Get him started with funding to complete the last 47 miles of the border fencing that was mandated by the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which was passed in the Senate 80 to 19. The yeas included current Senate party leaders Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) Schumer and former Senators Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.).

As amended by section 564 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, it requires DHS to “construct reinforced fencing along not less than 700 miles of the southwest border where fencing would be most practical and effective.”  DHS only completed 653 miles of the authorized fencing.

Finishing this project would give Trump a chance to show what he can do and provide a reliable basis for estimating the cost of a wall along the entire length of the Southwest border.

The alternative to finding a compromise is to abandon the tentative agreement and let the Democrats continue their endless stream of complaints about Trump, which won’t improve Congress’ approval ratings or save any of the DACA participants from being deported.”

******************************************

Go on over to The Hill to read Nolan’s complete article, which is well worth it whether you agree or not.

I basically agree with what Nolan has said above. While recognizing the emotional and political difficulties behind the Democrats giving on any “Wall Issue,” 47 miles of fencing in return for saving the lives and futures of nearly one million American young people is a reasonable trade-off. Unlike a “Full Wall,” the 47 miles has some bipartisan historical precedent and might be at least somewhat helpful to the Border Patrol in securing the border. Trump has to get something out of this for his “base” to offset their qualms about a “Dreamer Deal.” And the Democrats still reserve their right to “dig in” on other “Wall Issues” that won’t be going away as long as Trump is President. Plenty of room for the Democrats to posture to their base in the future, plus take credit for saving the Dreamers.

I think the Democrats should include as many Dreamers in the bill as possible. Since these residents are good for America, the more that are included the better for all of us. I would also reject inserting any “points system” into the process. That’s a bad idea (part of the “restrictionist agenda”) that Democrats should emphatically reject. I had all sorts of folks come though my courtroom in my thirteen years on the bench. I’d never say that the doctors, teachers, and computer scientists were “better” or “more valuable” for America than the bricklayers, landscapers, taxi drivers, maids, and sandwich artists. They are all contributing in important ways. The elitist “point system’ is simply another part of the bogus white restrictionist agenda.

I can’t agree with Nolan that there is anything that the Democrats can realistically do with Trump’s White Nationalist “wish list” on larger immigration reform. It’s a toxic and offensive compendium of truly reprehensible measures that will either diminish the legal and human rights of  the most vulnerable migrants or send America in a totally wrong direction by restricting legal immigration at a time when it should be expanded. Just nothing there that’s realistic or morally acceptable, as you might expect when White Nationalists like Sessions, Miller, and Banning get their hands on immigration policy.

Although clearly outnumbered at present, the Democrats do have two “Trump Cards” in their hand.

First, no matter how much cruel, inhumane, and wasteful “Gonzo” enforcement the Trump-Sessions-Homan crowd does, they won’t be able to make much of a dent in the 10-11 million population of undocumented workers during the Trump Administration, be that four or eight years. That means most of those folks aren’t going anywhere. It’s just a question of whether they work legally and pay taxes or work under the table where most of them probably won’t be able to pay taxes. So the issue will still be around, looking for a more constructive solution whenever “Trumpism” finally ends.

Second, no amount of Gonzo restrictionism can stop additional needed foreign workers from coming in the future as long as there 1) is an adequate supply, and 2) are U.S. industries that demand their services — and there clearly will continue to be. Employer sanctions won’t stop undocumented migration. We’ve already proved that. About the most the restrictionists can do is change the cost equation, making the cost of importing documented and undocumented workers more expensive to U.S. employers while enriching and enlarging international human smuggling operations. Restrictionists are international smuggling cartels’ “best friends,” at least up to a point.

It is, however, possible, that legal immigration restrictions enacted into law could eventually raise the costs of obtaining foreign labor, both documented and undocumented, to the point where it becomes “not cost-effective.” The cost of legal foreign labor would simply become too great and the supply too small. Meanwhile, over on the undocumented side, workers would have to pay smugglers more than they could anticipate making by working in the U.S.; there would come a point when it would not be cost-effective for U.S. employers to raise wages for undocumented workers any further.

At that point, the U.S. agriculture, tourism, hospitality, and entertainment industries, as well as other service industries heavily dependent on legal and undocumented foreign labor would start to disappear. They would soon be joined by technology, education, and other “STEM type” industries that need more qualified legal foreign labor than the restrictionists would be willing to provide. At that point, the country would go into economic free-fall, entirely attributable to the GOP restrictionists. The Democrats could come back into power, and eventually restore economic order with the necessary sane expansion of legal immigration opportunities.

It’s certainly a scenario that most Americans should want to avoid. But, as long as our government is controlled by restrictionists with overriding racial and political motivations, rather than by those searching for the “common good,” successful immigration reform might well be out of reach. And no “White Nationalist Manifestos” such as the Trump White House just issued are going to change that.

*************************************

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/11/politics/daca-negotiations-congress-latest/index.html

Meanwhile, over at CNN, Tal Kopan reports on the House GOP’s “own plan” for a “non-bi-partisan” Dreamer Bill, which, of course, would be DOA in the Senate.

Tal writes:

“Washington (CNN)A key House Republican involved in immigration negotiations said Wednesday that he expects his chamber will pass a bill with only GOP votes — and would include some version of a border wall — even as Democrats dismiss the idea that such a deal could reach the President’s desk.

Texas Rep. John Carter is a member of the House Republican immigration working group set up by House Speaker Paul Ryan to figure out a path forward for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, an Obama-era policy that protected young undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children from deportation, which President Donald Trump has decided to end.
Carter told reporters in the Capitol that he expects what comes out of those meetings to be Republican-only and to include at least something for Trump’s controversial border wall.
“I think we will have a wall factor in the bill and I don’t think we will get a single Democrat vote,” Carter said about the discussions.
Democrats have said any wall funding would be a nonstarter for negotiations, and Trump has suggested he’d consider separating the wall from the debate, though the White House has said it’s a priority.
close dialog
T
Carter declined to talk about the internal deliberations of the group, but said, “we are trying to come up with solutions which will not only be good for the DACA people but will also be good for America.”
Sources familiar with the workings of the group, which includes Republicans from across the spectrum of ideology in the party, say that while the group has been meeting and discussions are happening among members, the rough outline of a deal has yet to form.
Republicans may aspire to be able to use its House majority to pass the bill but will almost certainly lose some members over any legalization of DACA recipients, and could lose more moderates or conservatives depending on how a deal takes shape. For any bill to pass the Senate, it will need Democratic votes to clear the 60-vote filibuster threshold.
When Trump announced in early September he was ending DACA, Ryan created the group to attempt to gain consensus on the thorny issue. Trump urged Congress to act and protect DACA recipients, but has also called for border security and immigration enforcement with it. Sunday night, the White House released a laundry list of conservative immigration principles that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday dismissed as “trash” and coming from a place of “darkness and cruelty.”
Trump created a six-month window for Congress to act by offering DACA permits that expire before March 5 one month to renew for a fresh two years, postponing any DACA expirations until March.
On Wednesday, the Department of Homeland Security said it was still finalizing numbers but that at least 86% of those DACA recipients eligible to renew had applications in by the October 5 deadline. Roughly 132,000 of the 154,000 eligible recipients had applied, spokesman David Lapan said, but that could leave thousands of recipients losing protections before March.
As for the strategy of the House to pass a Republican-only bill, Carter acknowledged that there was a concern the group’s proposal couldn’t pass the Senate but said the other chamber needs “to get their work done” and he hoped both the House and Senate could hammer out a final compromise.
But Pelosi criticized the strategy when asked by CNN what she thought of Carter’s comments.
“That would not be a good idea,” Pelosi said. “Why would they go to such a place? It is really, again, another act of cruelty if they want to diminish a bill in such a way. And they still have to win in the Senate.”
California Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a longtime key House Democrat on any immigration policy, said that no serious negotiations have occurred between parties and moving forward alone would be Republicans’ prerogative but not necessarily successful.
“I like (Carter), I have no idea what they’re looking at, and if we were really having negotiations, we would be talking to each other,” Lofgren told CNN. “If they have the votes to pass something, they have the capacity to do that. How they get 60 votes in the Senate, who knows.”
*************************************************
Another unilateral House GOP proposal that will be DOA in the Senate. Really, these guys don’t earn their salaries.
Stay tuned.
PWS
10-12-17

 

NEW FROM THE HILL: N. RAPPAPORT SAYS “NO” TO MOST OF CAL SB 54, BUT WOULD LIKE TO FIND A COMPROMISE LEGISLATIVE SOLUTON TO HELP DREAMERS AND OTHER UNDOCUMENTED RESIDENTS!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/59dad902e4b08ce873a8cf53

In encourage you to go over to The Hill at the above link and read Nolan’s complete article. As always, whether you agree with Nolan or not, his articles are always thought-provoking and timely. Nolan is definitely a “player” in the immigration dialogue! (And, frankly, by going over to The Hill, Nolan gets a few more “hits” which give him a few more “hard-earned nickels” in his pockets. Gotta help out my fellow retirees!)

I can agree with Nolan’s bottom line:

“It would be better to help undocumented aliens by working on comprehensive immigration reform legislation that meets essential political needs of both parties.”

The challenge will be figuring out what those points might be. So far, the GOP “Wish List” is basically an “incendiary White Nationalist screed” drafted by notorious racist xenophobe Stephen Miller (probably with backing from Sessions and certainly incorporating parts of Steve Bannon’s alt-right White Nationalist world view) that contains virtually nothing that any Democrat, or indeed any decent person, could agree with. Indeed, the very involvement of Miller in the legislative process is a “gut punch” to Democrats and whatever “moderate GOP” legislators remain.

What are some “smart enforcement” moves that Democrats could agree with: more funding for DHS/ICE technology; improvements in hiring and training for DHS enforcement personnel; U.S. Immigration Court reforms;  more attorneys and support (including paralegal support) for the ICE Legal Program; more funding for “Know Your Rights” presentations in Detention Centers.

But more agents for “gonzo enforcement,” more money for immigration prisons (a/k/a the “American Gulag”), and, most disgustingly, picking on and targeting scared, vulnerable kids seeking protection from harm in Central America by stripping them of their already meager due process protections: NO WAY!

Although “The Wall” is a money wasting folly with lots of negative racial and foreign policy implications, it probably comes down to a “victory” that Democrats could give to Trump and the GOP without actually hurting any human beings, violating any overriding principles of human rights law, or diminishing Constitutional Due process. It also inflicts less long-term damage on America than a racially-oriented “point system” or a totally disastrous and wrong-headed decrease in legal immigration when the country needs the total opposite, a significant increase in legal immigration opportunities, including those for so-called “unskilled labor.”

While this GOP Congress will never agree to such an increase — and therefore workable “Immigration Reform” will continue to elude them — the Democrats need to “hold the line” at current levels until such time as Americans can use the ballot box to achieve a Congress more cognizant of the actual long-term needs of the majority of Americans.

PWS

10-09-17

 

THE HILL: N. Rappaport Says DHS Search Of Social Media Is Likely Legal

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/353479-homeland-securitys-social-media-searches-dont-actually-violate-privacy

Nolan writes:

“Homeland Security searching some social media doesn’t violate privacy

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has posted a new rule on the Federal Register which authorizes adding information from an alien’s social media sites to the files that are kept in his/her official immigration records, such as “social media handles, aliases, associated identifiable information, and search results.”

The official immigration records are known as “A-Files.”

The social media sites will be searched for information which pertains to granting aliens a visa or some other type of immigration benefit, and this almost certainly will lead to social media searches of the American citizens and lawful permanent residents who sponsor them.

For instance, if a citizen files a visa petition to accord immediate relative status to his alien spouse, and information on the spouse’s Facebook site indicates that the marriage is a sham, DHS will search the citizen petitioner’s Facebook site for additional information to assist in determining whether the marriage really is a sham.
But the most important reason is to identify terrorists, and this is the reason that prompted 26 senators to ask DHS to search social media sites after the San Bernardino terrorist attack.

. . . .

The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU have filed a lawsuit to stop DHS from searching mobile electronic devices at the border in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I expect them to challenge social media checks on the same basis.

The Fourth Amendment states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” But this only applies to situations where an individual has “a reasonable expectation of privacy,” which is not an easy concept to apply to social media information.

In any case, there is no expectation of privacy in immigration processes. Most, and perhaps all, of the persons involved in immigration processes have to authorize DHS to investigate them and the information they provide.

For instance, an American citizen or lawful permanent resident who files a visa petition for a relative has to fill out a Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative, which requires extensive information about the petitioner, his/her spouse, and his/her parents. It requires similar information about the alien who is the beneficiary of the petition.

The petitioner also has to authorize the release of information that is needed for the adjudication of the petition, or that is “necessary for the administration and enforcement of U.S. immigration laws.”

The Form DS-160 Application for a Nonimmigrant Visa requires even more information, and it should be apparent to aliens applying for a visa that they are subject to background investigations.

I am not convinced, therefore, that social media searches violate privacy rights, and the San Bernardino terrorist attack has shown that information on social media sites can help DHS to identify terrorists before they strike.

**************************************

Go over to The Hill at the link to read Nolan’s complete analysis.

I guess the message here is that if you want privacy, stay off of social media. Otherwise, user beware!

PWS

10-02-17

THE HILL: N. RAPPAPORT ON WHAT IT WILL TAKE TO CLOSE THE DEAL ON DREAMERS

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/352155-if-democrats-insist-on-chain-migration-theyll-kill-the-dream-act

Nolan writes:

“According to Migration Policy Institute estimates, potentially 3,338,000 aliens would be able to qualify for conditional lawful status under H.R.3440, which leads to permanent resident status, and chain migration would make the number much larger.

Moreover, chain migration would make it possible for the DREAMers to pass on legal status and a path to citizenship to the parents who brought them to the United States in violation of our laws, which is sure to be unacceptable to many Republicans.

The chain migration issue does not just apply to a DREAM Act. If it is allowed to block passage of a DREAM Act, it is likely to become an obstacle to every legalization program from now on, and for most undocumented immigrants, there is not going to be another way to obtain lawful permanent resident status.”

*****************************

Read Nolan’s complete analysis over at The Hill at the link.

I’m far removed from the days when I had a sense of what’s happening on the Hill. So, if Nolan says that the Dems will have to give on family migration for  Dreamers to cut a deal to save them in a GOP-controlled Congress in a Trump presidency, maybe that’s true. Gotta do what you have to do to save lives and preserve America’s future.

But, I do know something about the bogus term “chain migration” It’s a pejorative term coined by restrictionists to further their racial and ethnic agenda.

Chain migration is simply legal family migration, a process that has been ongoing for at least half a century and has done nothing but good things for America. Of course, it makes sense to give preferred treatment to those with family already in the U.S. Of course, having family here helps folks adjust, prosper, and contribute. It’s a win-win. Studies by groups not associated with a restrictionist agenda confirm that.

Moreover, unlike the folks pushing the restrictionist agenda, I actually have seen first-hand the highly positive results of family-based legal immigration for years in Immigration Court. It brings really great folks into our society and allows them to contribute fully to the success of America, and particularly our local communities.

If we want more skills-based immigration, that’s also a good idea. But, that doesn’t require a corresponding cut in family immigration. Immigration is good for America. It’s not a “zero-sum game,” although restrictionists would like us to think so.

The GOP position on parents of Dreamers is absurd. Those folks are already here and contributing to our society and our communities. Many have been here for decades. They are not going anywhere notwithstanding the rhetoric of the restrictionists and the Trump Administration. Other than picking on Dreamers once they become citizens, what could we as a country possibly gain by such an absurd and punitive measure directed against productive long term residents?

I think it is worth considering what pushing for unnecessary and harmful restrictions on family migration says about the real motivations of today’s GOP and its apologists.

PWS

09-24-17

 

TAL KOPAN IN CNN: HUMAN RIGHTS TRAVESTY — According To U.S. State Department’s Info, Sudan Remains One Of The Most Dangerous And Violent Countries In The World — But, Reality Isn’t Stopping The Trump Administration From Ending TPS Protection! -“I mean look what’s going on in Sudan,” [Rep. Zoe] Lofgren [D-CA] said. “If that is a wise decision, what’s an unwise one?”

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/sudan-tps-decision-dhs/index.html

Tal writes:

“Washington (CNN)The Trump administration on Monday announced an end to protections for Sudanese immigrants, a move that advocates fear could be a sign of things to come.

The Department of Homeland Security announced Monday afternoon that it would be ending Temporary Protected Status for Sudan after a 12-month sunset period. It opted to extend, however, Temporary Protected Status for South Sudan, which gained its independence in 2011, through May 2019.
The decision was overdue. By law, decisions on TPS designations are required 60 days before an expiration deadline. With both countries’ status set to expire on November 2, the decision was due September 3. DHS said it made a decision in time, but kept it quiet for more than two weeks and did not respond to requests for an explanation.
While the decision on the future of Temporary Protected Status for Sudanese and South Sudanese immigrants only affects just over 1,000 people in the US, the decision is being closely watched as a harbinger of where the administration will go on upcoming TPS decisions that affect more than 400,000 people in the US.
Under Acting DHS Secretary Elaine Duke’s direction on Monday, recipients of protections from Sudan will be allowed to remain protected from deportation and allowed to work under the program until November 2, 2018, during which they are expected to arrange for their departure or seek another immigration status that would allow them to remain in the US.
Individuals from South Sudan will be able to extend their status until May 2, 2019, when DHS will make another decision on their future based on conditions in the country.
According to USCIS data, at the end of 2016 there were 1,039 temporarily protected immigrants from Sudan in the United States and 49 from South Sudan.
Temporary Protected Status is a type of immigration status provided for by law in cases where a home country may not be hospitable to returning immigrants for temporary circumstances, including in instances of war, epidemic and natural disaster.
While DHS did not explain the delay in publicizing the decision, which the agency confirmed last week was made on time, the law only requires “timely” publication of a TPS determination. The decision was made as the administration was preparing to announce the end of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, a popular program that has protected nearly 800,000 young undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children from deportation since 2012.

Some of the affected individuals have been living in the US for 20 years. TPS is not a blanket protection — immigrants have to have been living in the US continuously since a country was “designated” for TPS in order to qualify.

For example, Sudan was first designated in 1997 and was re-designated in 1999, 2004 and 2013, meaning people had opportunities to apply if they’ve been living in the US since any of those dates. South Sudan’s TPS was established in 2011 and had re-designations in 2014 and 2016.
Both countries were designated for TPS based on “ongoing armed conflict and extraordinary and temporary conditions.”

The situation in Sudan has improved in recent years, but there are still concerns about its stability and human rights record. In January, outgoing President Barack Obama eased sanctions on Sudan but made some moves contingent upon further review. President Donald Trump has extended that review period. South Sudan, meanwhile, remains torn by conflict.

Advocates for TPS have expressed fear that if the administration were to begin to unwind the programs, it could be a sign of further decisions to come. In the next six months, roughly 400,000 immigrants’ status will be up for consideration, including Central American countries like El Salvador that have been a focus of the Presidents’ ire over illegal immigration and gang activity.
close dialog

California Rep. Zoe Lofgren, the top Democrat on the immigration subcommittee for the House Judiciary Committee, said in an interview before the decision that ending Sudan’s protections could be a sign of more to come.

“I mean look what’s going on in Sudan,” Lofgren said. “If that is a wise decision, what’s an unwise one?”

***************************************

Let’s take a closer look at some of those supposedly “improved conditions,” using the Government’s own information, the U.S. Department of State’s latest (2016) Country Report on Human Rights Conditions for Sudan:

“The three most significant human rights problems were inability of citizens to choose their government, aerial bombardments of civilian areas by military forces and attacks on civilians by government and other armed groups in conflict zones, and abuses perpetrated by NISS with impunity through special security powers given it by the regime. On January 14, the government launched an intensive aerial and ground offensive against Sudan Liberation Army-Abdul Wahid (SLA/AW) strongholds in the Jebel Marra area of Darfur. This operation displaced more than 44,700 persons by January 31, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). In February the government established in Darfur a suboffice of the National Human Rights Commission to enhance the commission’s capacity to monitor human rights in Darfur. Meanwhile, ground forces comprising Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and Border Guards carried out attacks against more than 50 villages in an attempt to dislodge the armed opposition. Attacks on villages often included killing and beating of civilians; sexual and gender-based violence; forced displacement; looting and burning entire villages; destroying food stores and other infrastructure necessary for sustaining life; and attacks on humanitarian targets, including humanitarian facilities and peacekeepers. In September, Amnesty International issued a report alleging that, through September the government engaged in scorched-earth tactics and used chemical weapons in Jebel Marra, Darfur. UN monitors were unable to verify the alleged use of chemical weapons, due in part to lack of access to Jebel Marra, including by rebel commanders loyal to Abdel Wahid. By year’s end the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had not been presented with sufficient corroborating evidence to conclude chemical weapons had been used. The NISS continued to show a pattern of widespread disregard for rule of law, committing major abuses, such as extrajudicial and other unlawful killings; torture, beatings, rape and other cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; arbitrary arrest and detention by security forces; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; incommunicado detention; prolonged pretrial detention; obstruction of humanitarian assistance; restrictions on freedom of speech, press, assembly,association, religion, and movement; and intimidation and closure of human rights and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Societal abuses included discrimination against women; sexual violence; female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C); early childhood marriage; use of child soldiers; child abuse; sexual exploitation of children; trafficking in persons; discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities, persons with disabilities, and persons with HIV/AIDS; denial of workers’ rights; and child labor. Government authorities did not investigate human rights violations by NISS, the military or any other branch of the security services, with limited exceptions relating to the national police. The government failed to adequately compensate families of victims of shootings during the September 2013 protests, make its investigations public, or hold security officials accountable. Impunity remained a problem in all branches of the security forces.

. . . .

The 2005 Interim National Constitution prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, but security forces, government-aligned groups, rebel groups, and ethnic factions continued to torture, beat, and harass suspected political opponents, rebel supporters, and others. In accordance with the government’s interpretation of sharia (Islamic law), the penal code provides for physical punishments, including flogging, amputation, stoning, and the public display of a body after execution, despite the constitution’s prohibitions. With the exception of flogging, such physical punishment was rare. Courts routinely imposed flogging, especially as punishment for the production or consumption of alcohol. The law requires police and the attorney general to investigate deaths on police premises, regardless of suspected cause. Reports of suspicious deaths in police custody were sometimes investigated but not prosecuted. For example, in November authorities detained a man upon his return from Israel. He died while in custody, allegedly from falling out a window, although the building had sealed windows. The president called on the chief prosecutor and chief justice to ensure full legal protection of police carrying out their duties and stated that police should investigate police officers only when they were observed exceeding their authority. Government security forces (including police, NISS, and military intelligence personnel of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF)) beat and tortured physically and psychologically persons in detention, including members of the political opposition, civil society, religious activists, and journalists, according to civil society activists in Khartoum, former detainees, and NGOs. Torture and other forms of mistreatment included prolonged isolation, exposure to extreme temperature variations, electric shock, and use of stress positions. Some female detainees alleged NISS harassed and sexually assaulted them. Some former detainees reported being injected with an unknown substance without their consent. Many former detainees, including detained students, reported being forced to take sedatives that caused lethargy and severe weight loss. The government subsequently released many of these persons without charge. Government authorities detained members of the Darfur Students Association during the year. Upon release, numerous students showed visible signs of severe physical abuse. Government forces reportedly used live bullets to disperse crowds of protesting Darfuri students. There were numerous reports of violence against student activists’ family members.

Security forces detained political opponents incommunicado, without charge, and tortured them. Some political detainees were held in isolation cells in regular prisons, and many were held without access to family or medical treatment. Human rights organizations asserted NISS ran “ghost houses,” where it detained opposition and human rights figures without acknowledging they were being held. Such detentions at times were prolonged. Journalists were beaten, threatened, and intimidated (see section 2.a.). The law prohibits (what it deems as) indecent dress and punishes it with a maximum of 40 lashes, a fine, or both. Officials acknowledged authorities applied these laws more frequently against women than men and applied them to both Muslims and non-Muslims. Courts denied some women bail, although by law they may have been eligible. There were numerous abuses reported similar to the following example: On June 25, the Public Order Police arrested several young women and men in Khartoum under the Public Order Act for “indecent dress.” During the sweep, all women who did not have their hair covered were taken into custody. The Public Order Police further arrested two young men for wearing shorts. According to NGO reports, the Public Order Police released the young women and men later the same day without charges.

Security forces, rebel groups, and armed individuals perpetrated sexual violence against women throughout the country; the abuse was especially prevalent in the conflict areas (see section 1.g.). As of year’s end, no investigations into the allegations of mass rape in Thabit, Darfur, had taken place (see section 6).”

*****************************************

What I’ve set forth above is just a small sample of some of the “lowlights.” Virtually every paragraph of the Country Report is rife with descriptions of or references to gross abuses of Human Rights.

Clearly, these are not the type of “improved country conditions” that would justify the termination of TPS for Sudan. Moreover, since it affects only 1,000 individuals, there are no overriding policy or practical reasons driving the decision.

No, the Administration’s totally disingenuous decision is just another example of wanton cruelty, denial of established facts, and stupidity.  Clearly, this is an Administration that puts Human Rights last, if at all.

As pointed out by Nolan Rappaport in a a recent post, the best solution here is a legislative solution that would provide green cards to long-time “TPSers” through the existing statutory device of “registry.” With some lead time to work on this, hopefully Lofgren can convince enough of her colleagues to make it happen.

Here’s a link to Nolan’s proposal:

http://immigrationcourtside.com/2017/09/14/the-hill-n-rappaport-suggests-legislative-solutions-for-long-term-tpsers/

PWS

09-19-17

 

THE HILL: N. RAPPAPORT SUGGESTS LEGISLATIVE SOLUTIONS FOR LONG-TERM “TPSers!”

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/350668-with-dreamers-out-bring-immigrants-under-temporary-protection-status-in

Nolan writes:

“The Temporary Protected Status program (TPS) provides refuge in the United States to more than 300,000 aliens from a total of 13 countries: El Salvador, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Liberia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

They are supposed to leave when it is safe for them to return to their own countries, but it can take many years for conditions in their countries to improve. The need for TPS can last for decades.

It does not include a path to permanent resident status, but should aliens who have lived in the United States for decades be required to leave when their TPS is terminated?

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) says that at some point they have been here so long that they should be allowed to remain permanently: “There should be some rational way to transition people who have been here for a long time … who because of the length of their stay have basically become valued members of our community.”

. . . .

An alien is free to apply for other types of immigration status while he has TPS.

So, should congress make permanent resident status available to TPS aliens when conditions in their countries keep them here an exceptionally long time?

I agree with Lofgren that at some point, TPS aliens have been living here so long that it no longer makes sense to send them back to their own countries.

The best solution would be to change the TPS provisions to make some form of permanent status available when aliens are forced to remain for exceptionally long times because conditions in their countries do not improve, but that might not be possible.

One of the TPS provisions imposes a limitation on consideration in the Senate of legislation to adjust the status of aliens who have TPS. It provides that it shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any bill or amendment that provides for adjustment to lawful temporary or permanent resident status for TPS aliens, or has the effect of amending the TPS provisions in any other way.

This restriction can be waived or suspended with an affirmative vote from three-fifths of the senators, which is known as a “supermajority vote.”

But there is an alternative that would not require changing the TPS provisions.

The Registry legalization program, which was established in 1929, makes lawful permanent resident status available to qualified aliens who entered the United States before January 1, 1972; have resided in the United States continuously since such entry; and have good moral character.

An update of the registry cutoff point is long overdue. It has not been changed since it was set at 1972, by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA).

The change would apply to all undocumented aliens who can meet the eligibility requirements.”

**********************************************

Read Nolan’s complete article, which contains a very succinct and helpful explanation of TPS which I omitted above, over at The Hill.

I think that Nolan has hit it on the head here! There is virtue in using existing administrative processes to deal with new issues. And, as he points out, “Registry” is there for the taking, and it’s been 30 years since it was updated!

Recollection: Understandably, we didn’t see very many “Registry” cases during my tenure at the Arlington Immigration Court (2003-16). But the rare ones we did receive always received “waivers” of the “no business at lunch rule” because they always involved such interesting human stories. I never came across one myself. But, I think that my colleagues who did always felt like they had discovered a “nugget of gold” in the least expected place! It would also help the Immigration Courts because most of the Registry cases (like the TPS cases) could be adjudicated over at USCIS, thereby reducing “docket pressure.” Bring back Registry! Yea Nolan!

PWS

09-14-17

THE HILL: Rappaport Says: “Trump ended DACA in the most humane way possible!” –Hector Barreto, Chairman of The Latino Coalition Agrees!

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/349566-trump-ended-daca-in-the-most-humane-way-possible

Nolan writes:

“Former President Barack Obama established the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Program five years ago with an executive order that granted temporary lawful status and work authorization to certain undocumented immigrants who had been brought to the United States as children.

This was not a good idea. It only provided temporary relief and applicants had to admit alienage, concede unlawful presence, and provide their addresses to establish eligibility for the program, which has made it very easy to find them and rush them through removal proceedings.

Instead of giving false hope to the young immigrants who participated in the program and heightening their risk of deportation, Obama should have worked on getting legislation passed that would have given them real lawful status and put them on a path to citizenship. Such bills are referred to as DREAM Acts, an acronym for “Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act.”

That still is the only option that makes any sense.

. . . .

DACA advocates need to put aside any anger they have over the rescission of DACA and work on getting a DREAM Act passed.

DREAM Acts have been pending in Congress since 2001, and we are yet to see one enacted.  This is what led Obama to establish the DACA program administratively.

A new approach is needed. One possibility would be to base eligibility on national interest instead of on a desire to help as many undocumented immigrants as possible, which is the approach taken by the recently introduced American Hope Act, H.R. 3591. It might more appropriately have been named, “The False Hope Act.”

The solution is to find a way to help immigrants who were brought here as children that would be acceptable to both parties.”

In a separate blog over on CNBC, Hector Barreto, Chairman of the Latino Coalition echoed Nolan:

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/09/06/on-daca-trump-did-the-right-thing-commentary.html

“The winding down of DACA is the perfect time for Congress to develop effective, compassionate policy on immigration – something most Americans strongly agree we need. The best reforms will be developed through the legislative process, not executive orders – and that’s something else both sides can agree on.

In the meantime, leaders should stay away from inflammatory language and fear mongering. Mass deportations will not happen – it is simply not logistically possible, and it is not what the Trump Administration has called for. It is worth noting how Attorney General Sessions described the government’s next steps:

The Department of Justice has advised the President and the Department of Homeland Security that DHS should begin an orderly, lawful wind down, including the cancellation of the memo that authorized this program. … This [wind down process] will enable DHS to conduct an orderly change and fulfill the desire of this administration to create a time period for Congress to act—should it so choose. We firmly believe this is the responsible path.

Sessions’ words about a “wind down” were rational and calm, indicating an approach that is not drastic or dramatic, not gratuitously painful or overly political. The end of DACA and the beginning of lawful immigration reform can, and should, be handled with this level of maturity and respect – for dreamers for American citizens, and for our nation’s tradition of the rule of law.

PLAY VIDEO

Demonstrators hold signs during a protest in front of the White House after the Trump administration today scrapped the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), a program that protects from deportation almost 800,000 young men and women who were brought into the U.S. illegally as children, in Washington, U.S., September 5, 2017.

There are no easy or simple answers on immigration, and it’s okay for our leaders to acknowledge that fact. I believe they can find legislative solutions that strengthen America, recognize our proud immigrant tradition, keep the economy strong, and keep our citizens safe and our borders secure. The core elements of President George W. Bush’s immigration reform proposals, for example, met those goals through effective border security, a functioning and humane guest worker program, and a pathway to earned legal status for the undocumented. Given the six-month time frame Congress will have before DACA ends, they would do well to start their work with Bush’s already well-developed proposal.

President Trump even Tweeted on Tuesday that he would revisit the issue if Congress cannot act.”

**************************************************

Read Nolan’s and Hector’s blogs at their respective links above.

I agree with Nolan’s “bottom line:”

“The solution is to find a way to help immigrants who were brought here as children that would be acceptable to both parties.”

PWS

09-05-17

 

 

THE HILL: RAPPAPORT ON TEXAS INJUNCTION OF PARTS OF SB 4 — City of El Cenizo v. State of Texas

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/349103-texas-courts-pro-sanctuary-cities-decision-can-cripple

Nolan writes:

“At the end of August, a federal district court in Texas ruled against that state, halting an immigration enforcement law shortly before it was to go into effect.

The court issued a preliminary (temporary) injunction to halt the implementation of five allegedly unconstitutional provisions in Texas’ anti-sanctuary city law, Senate Bill 4 (SB 4), including one that would require law enforcement agencies in Texas to “comply with, honor, and fulfill” any immigration detainer issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

This means that the court found a substantial likelihood that the plaintiffs (in this case, the parties opposing the state of Texas) will succeed in establishing that those provisions are unconstitutional when a decision is rendered on the merits of the case.

If the decision on ICE detainers is correct, which seems to be the case, it could cripple ICE’s ability to prevent removable criminal aliens from absconding when they are released from custody by state and local law enforcement agencies.

. . . .

When Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed SB 4 into law, he said that denying detainer requests can have deadly consequences.  This is illustrated by the case of Kate Steinle, who was shot dead by a criminal alien while she was walking with her father on a busy pier in San Francisco.

The alien was a repeat felon who had been deported five times, but the police department that had been holding him released him in disregard of a detainer request because San Francisco is a sanctuary city that does not honor detainer requests.

Preventing the use of detainers could have unintended consequences. If other federal courts agree with the decision’s disposition of the detainer issue; state and local police in every part of the country may have to stop honoring detainer requests, and ICE could use the time that would have been spent following up on detainers to go after noncriminal aliens.

ICE can encourage state and local police departments to participate in the federal 287(g) Program, which allows participants to enter into a partnership with ICE on the basis of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). They would receive training on immigration enforcement and delegated immigration authority, which includes the option of being able to detain aliens on the basis of detainers.

But ICE does not have the resources to train and supervise police in all of the state and local law enforcement agencies in the country.

The only solution is for Congress to grant state and local police the authority to detain aliens on the basis of an ICE detainer.”

***********************************

Read Nolan’s complete analysis over at The Hill at the link.

I agree with Nolan that the Chief District Judge Orlando L. Garcia’s analysis of SB 4’s constitutional infirmities appears to be correct. I also agree that rationale should eventually require DHS to change its detainer policy nationwide to meet constitutional standards.

That means that a battery of DHS and DOJ attorneys, of which there is no shortage, will have to work with the enforcement branches to come up with effective enforcement methods that comply with our Constitution. Stuff like that happens all the time. That’s why the Government needs good lawyers.

I don’t agree with Nolan that the only way for DHS to function is for Congress to pass legislation turning untrained local cops into immigration officers for the purpose of honoring detainers. Seems like you end up with the same problem, just “dressed up” differently.

I spent over a decade working for the Legacy INS on immigration enforcement matters. Nobody ever doubted that immigration officers could effectively carry out their duties 1) in full compliance with the U.S. Constitution, and 2) without relying on state and local officials. Indeed, the “mantra” of INS Enforcement in those days was “we’re the immigration pros, leave enforcement to us.” I guess times must have changed; but not that much. And, the Fourth Amendment hasn’t changed at all.

I also don’t buy the claim that Abbott was interested in protecting Texans from dangerous crime. No, this was about a White Nationalist agenda designed to put down minorities, particularly in the Latino community, and prevent them from getting their fair share of political power. That’s why, although Latinos make up a large proportion of Texas’s population, Latino leaders generally opposed the GOP’s and Abbott’s racially divisive action.

A bill really aimed at protecting all Texans, regardless of ethnicity or status, from violent crime would have received support from about 98% of residents (who really wants to be a victim of violent crime — almost nobody, as the BIA has observed on a number of occasions) including the overwhelming number  of Latinos. That it didn’t, and that a majority-Latino jurisdiction like El Cenizo is the lead plaintiff opposing the bill says all you need to know about the SB 4’s White Nationalist intent.

There will come a day when the Abbotts, Paxtons, and other denizens of the Texas White GOP will have to share power equitably with Latino and other minority Texans. When that happens, they can only hope that Latino leaders and politicians will have short memories, forgive the racism of the past, and move on to the future treating them with greater respect and consideration than they deserve based on their recent “sharp stick in the eyes” words and actions.

Until that happens — well, as I’ve said before, lots of work for lawyers and judges.

PWS

09-04-17

THE HILL: NOLAN’S PROPOSAL FOR AVOIDING A SHUTDOWN, SAVING DREAMERS, & GIVING TRUMP SOME WALL!

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/348280-trump-strike-a-deal-trade-border-wall-funding-for-daca

Nolan Rappaport writes in The Hill:

“Despite the difficulty of the task, give Trump a chance to show what he can do. This can be done by properly funding the existing border security legislation.

Provide Trump with the funding needed to finish the southwest border fencing project mandated by the bipartisan Secure Fence Act of 2006.

The Secure Fence Act was passed in the Senate 80 to 19. The yeas included current Senate party leaders Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and former Senators Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.).

It mandated 850 miles of fencing along the southwest border, but as amended by section 564 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, it just requires DHS to “construct reinforced fencing along not less than 700 miles of the southwest border where fencing would be most practical and effective.”

DHS has constructed just 653 miles of fencing.

When Trump has completed the last 47 miles of this project, he will be able to show Congress the kind of wall he wants for the rest of the border and provide a reliable estimate of what it would cost.

To incentivize Trump to accept this alternative, Congress should assist him with his border security efforts by weakening the “job magnet,” the fact that undocumented aliens generally come here to find employment.

Congress tried to eliminate this magnet with an employer sanctions program in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), but it has been more than 30 years since the program was established and it still has not been fully implemented.

According to a report by Georgetown’s Institute for the Study of International Migration, unscrupulous employers “knowingly hire unauthorized workers to exploit their labor.” For instance, they “pay salaries in cash, failing to pay their share of social security taxes.”

The Department of Labor (DOL) enforces labor laws that curb such abuses without regard to employee immigration status, e.g., the Fair Labor Standards Act, which mandates minimum wages, overtime pay, youth employment, and other standards for all employees.

Congress can provide Trump with the funding DOL needs for a nationwide campaign to stop the exploitation of employees in industries known to hire undocumented aliens. This would weaken the job magnet and reduce the number of illegal border crossings.

But the president isn’t the only player congressional Republicans need to persuade to accept a compromise. To prevent a government shutdown (and fund Trump’s border wall), they will also need Democrats. What may be enough to persuade them is protecting an Obama-era immigration program.

On June 15, 2012, President Barack Obama established a program to offer temporary lawful status to undocumented aliens who were brought here as children, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

The application process required them to admit alienage and concede unlawful presence, and to provide their addresses, which makes it easy for them to be arrested and deported.

In a June 2017 letter, state attorney generals asked U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions to terminate DACA. If he does not do it, they will amend a pending lawsuit in a Federal District Court to include a challenge to DACA.

The administration apparently does not intend to defend DACA in court if it is included in the lawsuit. Moreover, recent media reports indicate that Trump is likely to rescind the program.

The Democrats might be more receptive to the measures I have proposed if they are offered a separate bill that would protect DACA participants from deportation if the program is terminated.

Nothing good will come from a showdown between Trump and the Senate over funding his wall. They need to prevent that from happening.”

*******************************

Read Nolan’s complete op-ed over at The Hill at the above link.

 

PWS

08-29-18

N. RAPPAPORT IN THE HILL: Alternatives To The Border Wall!

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/347359-congress-unlikely-to-pay-for-border-wall-but-trump-has-other

Nolan writes in his latest article:

“The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 established a legalization program for undocumented aliens already in the United States and created employer sanctions to discourage employers from hiring undocumented aliens in the future.

That was 30 years ago, and the program still has not been fully implemented. It might be better to let the Department of Labor (DOL) deal with the job magnet.

Many American employers hire undocumented foreign workers because it is easy to exploit them. DOL enforces federal labor laws that were enacted to curb such abuses, such as the Fair Labor Standards Act which established a minimum wage, overtime pay, and other employment standards.

With additional funding, DOL could mount a large-scale, nationwide campaign to stop the exploitation of employees in industries known to hire large numbers of undocumented aliens, without basing the fines on the immigration status of the employees.

In contrast with Trump, President Obama focused his immigration enforcement program on aliens who had been convicted of serious crimes, had been caught near the border after an illegal entry, or had returned unlawfully after being deported.

Once an undocumented alien had succeeded in reaching the interior of the country, he was “home free.” It was extremely unlikely that he would be deported unless he was convicted of a serious crime. This was a powerful incentive to find a way to get past security measures on the border.

No deportable alien is safe from deportation under Trump’s enforcement policies.

This produced results very quickly. In April 2017, CBP reported a sharp decline in the number of aliens apprehended while making illegal crossings.

But Trump has to implement his enforcement policies to keep the magnet from coming back and he could benefit from implementing expedited removal proceedings.

As of the June 2017, the immigrant court’s backlog was 610,524 cases. This severely limited efforts to remove deportable aliens.

President Trump finessed his way around this problem by expanding the use of expedited removal proceedings in his Executive Order, Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements.

In expedited removal proceedings, which are conducted by immigration officers, an alien who lacks proper documentation or has committed fraud or a willful misrepresentation to enter the country, and has not been physically present for two years, can be deported without a hearing before an immigration judge, unless he establishes a credible fear of persecution.

Trump needs funding to be able to carry out a large-scale, nationwide program of expedited removal proceedings.

These measures would reduce the number of people trying to make illegal crossings, making border security much easier to achieve, even without his promised wall.”

******************************

Go on over to The Hill to read Nolan’s complete analysis.

I agree with Nolan and many in Congress that the border wall will be an ineffective waste of money. And, in the liteny of Trump lies, it has become clear that “Mexico will pay” is just another whopper.

I also agree with Nolan that more funding for Fair Labor Standards Act enforcement is a good idea. However, the Trump Administration is moving the other way on all regulatory enforcement except immigration.

I would oppose funding for expedited removal. I believe it is a clear denial of due process, particularly as carried out by this Administration. I recognize that to date most Federal Courts have taken a “head in the sand” approach to the serious constitutional issues raised by expedited removal.  But, I think that as Trump pushes the envelope the courts will eventually have to face up to the total lack of due process and safeguards in the current system.

In any event, whether expedited removal is unconstitutional or not, it’s bad policy. It should be rescinded, not expanded.

PWS

08-26-17

 

 

NOLAN RAPPAPORT IN THE HILL: RAISE ACT COULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR DREAMERS!

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/346367-how-trumps-legal-immigration-cuts-could-be-a-blessing-to

Nolan writes:

“Senators Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and David Perdue (R-Ga.) recently introduced a revised version of the bill addressing legal immigration into the United States, the Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy (RAISE) Act.  It is supposed to spur economic growth and raise working Americans’ wages by giving priority to the best-skilled immigrants from around the world and reducing overall immigration by half.

Supporters include President Donald Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, andActing Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke.

Nevertheless, it will not reach the president’s desk without support from influential Democratic congressmen, which will be difficult to get and won’t be free.
According to Representative Luis V. Gutierrez (D-Ill.), the RAISE Act “and the bear hug by the Bannon/Kelly/Trump White House — betrays the deep animosity towards legal immigration that has become the central, unifying tenet of the Republican Party.”

. . . .

Suggestions for a compromise.

The main price for Gutierrez’s support would be to establish a DREAM Act program that would be based on an appropriate merit-based point system.

The number of undocumented aliens who might benefit from a dream act can range from 2.5 to 3.3 million.  It isn’t likely that an agreement will be reached if Gutierrez insists on a number in that range.

Concessions have to be made to achieve an acceptable compromise, and allowing termination of the Visa Waiver Program would be a reasonable choice.  An alternative would be to keep the program as is but distribute the visas on a merit point system instead of using a lottery.

The refugee provision is problematic, but the president has sole authority to determine the number of admissions and the current president supports the 50,000 cap. The Democrats will try to eliminate this cap or raise it if they can’t eliminate it, but this should not be a deal breaker if the other issues are worked out satisfactorily.

The restrictions on family-based immigration, however, are another matter.  They should be modified.  Cotton and Purdue doomed their bill to failure with these provisions.  They hurt constituents on both sides of the aisle.

Moreover, they do not make any sense.  What does national interest mean if the family-unification needs of citizens and legal permanent residents don’t count?

Some advocates strongly opposes the point system because they think it fails to take into account the needs of U.S. businesses, but their concern is based on the point criterion in the current version of the RAISE Act, which has not been subjected to any hearings or markups yet.  If the senators and Gutierrez cannot work out a compromise that protects the needs of U.S. businesses, there will be plenty of time to make additional changes.

This isn’t just about moving these bills through congress.  According to recent Gallup polls, “Americans view Congress relatively poorly, with job approval ratings of the institution below 30% since October 2009.”

And the current Republican-controlled congress is not turning this around.  Reaching an agreement with the Democrats on an immigration reform bill that includes a DREAM Act legalization program would be a good place to start.”

***************************************************

Go over to The Hill at the above link to read Nolan’s complete article.

PWS

08-13-17

 

N. RAPPAPORT IN THE HILL: DEMS’ DREAMER BILL OFFERS FALSE HOPE!

Nolan writes:

“Late last month, Congressman Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.), introduced the American Hope Act, H.R. 3591, with 116 co-sponsors, all Democrats.

The bill would provide conditional permanent resident status for undocumented aliens who were brought to the U.S. before their 18th birthday, which would permit them to live and work here legally for three years and put them on a path to Legal Permanent Resident status and citizenship.

Such bills are referred to as “DREAM Acts,” an acronym for “Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act.”

It might be more accurate, however, to call this bill “The False Hope Act.”

Bills to provide lawful status for undocumented aliens who were brought here as children have been pending in Congress since 2001, and we are yet to see one enacted legislatively, rather than by executive action.  And this one was introduced by Democrats in a Republican-controlled Congress.  Moreover, it is out of step with President Donald Trump’s policies on legal immigration.

. . . .

Why hasn’t a DREAM Act bill been enacted?  

No one knows for sure.  I think it is due mainly to the fact that the number of undocumented aliens who would benefit from such legislation could get quite large.  Also, the fact that they are innocent of wrongdoing with respect to being here unlawfully does not make it in our national interest to let them stay.  This is particularly problematic with respect to the American Hope Act.  Section 4 of this bill includes a waiver that applies to some serious criminal exclusion grounds.

Although estimates for the number of undocumented aliens who could be impacted are not available yet for the American Hope Act, they are available for similar bills that were introduced this year, the Recognizing America’s Children Act, H.R. 1468, and the Dream Act of 2017, S. 1615.

The Migration Policy Institute estimates that potentially 2,504,000 aliens would be able to meet the minimum age at arrival and years of residence thresholds for the House bill and 3,338,000 for the Senate bill.  However, some of them would need to complete educational requirements before they could apply.

Trump is supporting a revised version of the RAISE Act which would reduce the annual number of legal immigrants from one million to 500,000 over the next decade.  It does not seem likely therefore that he will be receptive to a program that would make a very substantial increase in the number of legal immigrants.

Not merit-based.

The American Hope Act would treat all immigrant youth who were brought here as children the same, regardless of educational level, military service, or work history.  Gutiérrez said in a press release, “We are not picking good immigrants versus bad immigrants or deserving versus undeserving, we are working to defend those who live among us and should have a place in our society.”

This is inconsistent with the skills-based point system in the revised version of the RAISE Act that Trump is supporting.  It would prioritize immigrants who are most likely to succeed in the United States and expand the economy.  Points would be based on factors such as education, English-language ability, age, and achievements.

Thus, Democrats’ American Hope Act as presently written is very likely to suffer the same fate as the other DREAM Acts.

Success requires a fresh, new approach, and the approach taken by the revised RAISE Act might work by basing eligibility on national interest instead of on a desire to help the immigrants.  Certainly, it would be more likely to get Trump’s support.”

***************************************************

Read Nolan’s complete article over at The Hill on the above link.

I agree with Nolan insofar as any immigration bill sponsored by
Democrats at present is DOA. On the other hand, I doubt that the RAISE Act will pass either. There aren’t enough votes in the GOP caucus to pass any type of meaningful immigration reform without some help from the Democrats.

So, it doesn’t hurt for the Democrats to start laying down some specific “markers” for some future negotiations on immigration reform. Also, while it might not happen in my liftetime, history suggests that the Democrats are no more permanently “dead” as a party than the GOP was after the first Obama election and Democratic surge into power in the Executive and Legislative Branches.

The last time Democrats were in power, the Latino/Hispanic voters who had helped put them there were treated as largely non-existent. Indeed, the Obama Administration ran the U.S. Immigration Courts largely as if they were an extension of the Bush Administration, giving the advocacy community the cold shoulder, enacting zero reforms, and pitching a “near shutout” on outside appointments to the Immigration Court and the BIA over which they had total control.

The next time Democrats come into power, it would be wise of the groups that will help put them there to insist on the types of specific reforms and improvements that the Democrats are now articulating in “can’t pass” legislative proposals. And, in addition to doing something for Dreamers and other migrants who are contributing to our society, meaningful Immigration Court reform to remove it from Executive Branch control needs to be high on the list. Realistically, that’s probably going to require some bipartisan cooperation, participation, and support.

I also disagree with Nolan’s suggestion that it would not be in the national interest to let “Dreamers” stay. Of course, it would be strongly in our national interest to fully incorporate these fine young folks into our society so that they could achieve their full potential and we could get the full benefit of their talents, skills, and courage.

I had a steady stream of DACA applicants coming through my court in Arlington. Sure, some of them had problems, and DHS did a good job of weeding those folks out and/or revoking status if problems arose. But, the overwhelming majority were fine young people who either already were making significant contributions to our society or who were well positioned to do so in the future. Indeed, they were indistinguishable from their siblings and classsmates who had the good fortune to be born in the U.S., except perhaps that they often had to work a little harder and show a little more drive to overcome some of the inaccurate negative stereotypes about undocumented migrants and some of the disabilities imposed on them.

PWS

08-07-17

N. Rappaport In The Hill: CAL Should Try A Different Approach For Helping Undocumented Residents!

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/342178-illegal-ca-sanctuary-state-bill-is-actually-an-ineffective-way

Nolan writes:

California 'sanctuary state' bill is illegal, but also ineffective
© Getty

“Activist Dolores Huertaclaims that California needs to enact the California Values Act, Senate Bill 54 (SB 54), as a counterweight to Texas’s draconian law banning sanctuary cities in that state and President Donald Trump’s “xenophobic agenda to deport millions of people.”

I disagree.  While I can understand why Huerta dislikes Texas’s sanctuary city law, it is an exaggeration to call it “draconian.”  And Trump is just enforcing immigration provisions that were written by Congress and signed into law by previous presidents.  If those laws are xenophobic, the solution is to lobby Congress to change them.

Making California a sanctuary state will not stop Trump’s enforcement efforts.  But it would violate federal law and make California ineligible for certain types of federal grants.

. . . .

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel found a better way to help.  He established a Legal Protection Fund for undocumented aliens living in Chicago.

Once undocumented aliens are in expedited removal proceedings, they are subject to mandatory detention and cannot be represented by an attorney; but they can be helped by attorneys before they are in such proceedings.

When appropriate, attorneys can assist them in putting together the evidence they will need to establish that they have been in the United States for more than two years, or that they have a credible fear of persecution, if they find themselves in expedited removal proceedings.

This would help many undocumented aliens without violating any federal law or making California ineligible for needed federal funds.

Emanuel found a better way to help.  He established a Legal Protection Fund for undocumented aliens living in Chicago.

Once undocumented aliens are in expedited removal proceedings, they are subject to mandatory detention and cannot be represented by an attorney; but they can be helped by attorneys before they are in such proceedings.

When appropriate, attorneys can assist them in putting together the evidence they will need to establish that they have been in the United States for more than two years, or that they have a credible fear of persecution, if they find themselves in expedited removal proceedings.

This would help many undocumented aliens without violating any federal law or making California ineligible for needed federal funds.”

**************************************************

Go over to The Hill at the link for Nolan’s complete article.

PWS

07-15-17

N. RAPPAPORT IN THE HILL: Trump Has An Opportunity To Make a Positive Difference on Human Trafficking!

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/crime/341042-trump-can-leave-his-mark-by-decimating-human-trafficking

Nolan writes:

“Human trafficking presents President Donald Trump with an opportunity to show what he can accomplish when he is not hampered by political partisanship. It is one of the least partisan issues he will face as president, and it is a major problem. There were fewer than 10,000 worldwide convictions of human traffickers in 2016, and the number of victims remains in the tens of millions.

Former President Barack Obama said, “Our fight against human trafficking is one of the great human rights causes of our time.”

Trump’s daughter, Ivanka Trump gave a speech at the launch ceremony for the 2017 Trafficking in Persons Report, which highlights the successes and the remaining challenges. She pointed out that trafficking often is a secret crime. It can be a great challenge just to identify the victims.

“Most tragically, human trafficking preys on the most vulnerable, young children, boys and girls, separating them from their families, often to be exploited, forced into prostitution or sex slavery,” she said.

Ending human trafficking, she continued, “is a major foreign policy priority for the Trump administration.”

Palermo Protocol

The preamble to the Palermo Protocol, which supplements the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, declares that:

“[E]ffective action to prevent and combat trafficking in persons, especially women and children, requires a comprehensive international approach in the countries of origin, transit and destination that includes measures to prevent such trafficking, to punish the traffickers and to protect the victims of such trafficking…”

The obligations of this protocol are the focus of the report.”

*****************************************************

Read Nolan’s complete article at the link.

B/t/w, Nolan informs me that this is his 30th published article in The Hill. Most impressive!

Here’s a link to a list of all 30!

30 Hill Articles

PWs

07-09-17