"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt. To see my complete professional bio, just click on the link below.
We found that JMD’s and EOIR’s contracting files did not demonstrate that the acquisition planning team applied well-established techniques to facilitate monitoring and overseeing the contractors’ performance in compliance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), DOJ and EOIR policies, or the award terms and conditions.
*******************************************
In simple terms, with well over a million lives at stake and with tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money on the line, EOIR screwed up! Royally!👑 This report focuses on the period 2017-22, that included the Trump Administration. During that time, the Trump-Era “EOIR Clown Show” 🤡 was busy on such frivolous things as:
Developing a list of lies, distortions, and misrepresentations about asylum seekers and their attorneys and putting it out as a bogus (now eradicated without a trace) “fact sheet;”
Implementing since-abandoned “production quotas” and wasting money on so-called “IJ Dashboards” to micromanage production;
Creating an “Office of Policy” in an agency where such “policy” is largely the responsibility of what is supposed to be a body of independent quasi-judicial adjudicators, the BIA, and which office largely duplicated functions that were being satisfactorily performed by the EOIR Office of General Counsel;
Mismanaging the COVID response in the Immigration Courts;
Building record backlogs.
While Garland did eventually push out the Director, Deputy Director, and Chief Immigration Judge, the later position remains vacant and there is no hard evidence that the replacements for Director and Deputy Director are any more qualified than their inept predecessors to lead “America’s worst courts” back to some level of competence and functionality.
And, as has become the “norm” under Garland, there is no firm indication of any accountability or meaningful institutional improvements to insure due process and appropriate expenditure of public funds.
And, it’s not like things were better before 2017. As the report noted, between 2001 and 2016, EOIR “blew through” $80 million on its so-called “eWorld Adjudication System (eWorld),” without producing a functional product that could be used nationwide! Hence the need to throw even more money at the problem from 2017-22!
“It’s a debate between those who think our openness as a democratic society is an advantage in the struggle with autocracies or a disadvantage,” Malinowski told me. “One of the central lessons of the Cold War was that it is an advantage. I just hope we choose the same strategy that won the Cold War.”
One thing that has changed since the Cold War is that now these skilled workers who are fleeing Russia and Hong Kong have more options. Some reports say 50,000 to 70,000 Russian tech workers fled to places such as Turkey, Georgia and the Baltic countries in the first weeks of the war in Ukraine. Hong Kong business leaders are decamping for Singapore. Canada has already expanded immigration for Hong Kongers with advanced degrees, and thousands are taking advantage.
The whole world is competing for the talents of those who are fleeing from Hong Kong and Putin’s Russia. Republicans’ excessive fear of immigration should not waste a strategic opportunity for the United States to strengthen itself and weaken its rivals at the same time. Congress should work to ensure that China’s and Russia’s losses are America’s gains.
************************
Read Josh’s full op-ed at the link.
As the GOP threatens democracy, suppresses individual liberties, stymies innovation, and spreads White Nationalist fear mongering about immigrants, both documented and undocumented, they make the U.S. sound more and more like the country that “lost” the Cold War.
Hon. David L. Neal Director Executive Office For Immigration Review USDOJ PHOTO: C-SPAN
BREAKING: ABSURDIST “IJ DASHBOARDS” HEADED FOR THE SCRAP HEAP? — New EOIR Director David Neal Reportedly Takes Prompt Action To Eliminate Wasteful, Counterproductive, Stress-Inducing “Big Brotherism” On The Bench!
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
Courtside Exclusive
Oct. 20, 2021
Sources in and outside of EOIR confirm that new EOIR Director “David Neal has ended the dashboard. Supposedly, new IJ quotas are coming, which will be presented as kinder, more humane quotas.”
The “IJ Dashboards,” inextricably tied to due-process-denying “deportation quotas” for Immigration Judges were one of the stupidest, most childish, and transparently counterproductive wastes of taxpayer money by the Trump regime at the DOJ. They were harshly criticized both internally and by outside commentators, including “Courtside.” Their ineffectiveness in reducing backlogs and their adverse effects on already “below basement level” IJ morale are matters of public record!
Shockingly, this wasteful abuse of technology was undertaken at a time when EOIR was continuing its two decade abject failure to implement a badly-needed and long overdue nationwide e-filing system. Who knows how many files and filings are actually floating around EOIR (“lost in space”)? EOIR incompetence means we might never know the full extent of the ongoing backlog disaster! Will David Neal become the first Director in more than two decades to actually solve this problem, rather than just scrambling to conver up failure?
Congratulations to Director Neal for “taking at least one small step for mankind.” We’ll wait to hear what he does to make “IJ quotas” more “kind and gentle.”
The obvious “no brainer” answer is to eliminate them entirely. They could be replaced with realistic, non-mandatory “goals”or “guidelines” for deciding certain types of cases. This might provide helpful guidance for IJs in setting expectations and fairly and professionally handling clogged dockets, rather than ham-handed attempts at coercion and transparent “blame shifting.”
However those guidelines would have to be developed with input from the Immigration Judges themselves, counsel from both the private bar and DHS, and some true judicial experts — perhaps “on loan” from the Administrative Office for U.S. Courts, the Brennan Center, the ABA, and/or the FBA.
Past “goals and timetables” have been the product of political posturing and wishful thinking by those bureaucrats at DOJ and EOIR trying to shift blame and CTA for the failing system under their responsibility. The legitimacy of the process by which any guidelines are established is critical to making them realistic and helpful, rather than just another bureaucratic gimmick untethered to reality as past guidelines have been.
President-elect Joe Biden, who pledged to serve all Americans, can respond boldly to address the needs of large swaths of rural America where people feel left behind. In the first 100 days of his administration, he can prove that he wants to see real change and will act to secure broader prosperity.
Drawing on more than 20 years of working in communities across four rural states, we see actionable, specific opportunities for Biden to make federal policy work for rural places. Here’s what we recommend:
• Engage in genuine conversations in rural places about the role of the federal government. The pandemic aside, fundamental economic changes, limited career pathways and crumbling (or non-existent) infrastructure plague many rural places. These challenges require public-private partnerships, directed by local needs and leadership. Many of the federal programs designed to address the underlying issues in rural places fail because they were designed for the rural reality of 1960, not of today. Let’s get current, understand why programs aren’t working and make them better.
• Elevate rural to the level it deserves in the president’s Cabinet. Rural places are currently served through a web of programs spread across numerous federal agencies. One might think this approach would help address policy deficiencies, but in fact, when everyone is in charge, no one is. The Biden administration can send a strong message that it means business by putting someone clearly in charge of its rural agenda and creating a new Department of Rural Development dedicated to improving, centralizing, and deploying the support and services necessary for rural people and places to thrive.
• Invest in doing economic development differently in rural places. Federal employees work diligently on their mission, providing grants and other services to constituents as directed by statute. And yet, the available tools for solving complicated, systemic and immediate issues are limited. To do economic development differently – and better – we need to eliminate programs that have limited utility, expand others that focus on building capacity in rural places, increase the flexible application of federal dollars and move the measurement of economic development outcomes beyond one-dimensional (and fleeting) metrics like job creation.
• Focus on and communicate about rural-urban connections rather than the divide. Rural places don’t benefit from being talked about as a monolith, a backwater or fly-over country. Rather, we as a nation need to raise up narratives and policies that recognize differences in rural places across the country, and that celebrate and support the natural, community, and economic assets that define those communities and their relationship to nearby urban areas. The stereotype of the American dream is changing. We now have a tapestry of rural, suburban and urban, and an opportunity to focus on collective prosperity rather than competition, exclusion and negative trade-offs.
The first hundred days will show how the Biden presidency will serve all Americans. Yes, there is a pandemic raging, but the widening gulf between rural and urban, rich and poor, red and blue requires a new tone, a new path and new solutions. Let’s get to it.
Rob Riley is president of the Northern Forest Center, a regional innovation and investment partner that creates rural vibrancy across Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York. The center co-founded the national Rural Development Innovation Group with the Aspen Institute and the U.S. Endowment for Forestry & Communities.
**************************
Read Rob’s full article at the link.
These are great, and timely ideas. They also present an outstanding opportunity to use the power of immigration to make our country a better place for everyone.
Immigrant entrepreneurs, small businesspeople, and investors can pool their ideas, skills, and resources with rural communities. Innovative rural Americans can help redesign and tailor methods that have worked in other countries for the American situation.
Immigrants with experience in agriculture and product marketing can help alleviate some of the labor shortages in rural areas.
Immigrants with tech skills can partner with rural Americans to help insure that, rather than sometimes being left behind, rural areas are on the cutting edge of accessible, high speed, state of the art technology that will integrate many educational and commercial activities with those now centered in “urban hubs.” (For example, why couldn’t a high tech area in rural America where land and housing are cheaper and a skilled (or highly motivated and trainable) workforce is eager for work be just as effective as Crystal City, VA as the next big tech hub?)
Immigrants with health service backgrounds can assist even more rural communities in insuring that first-class healthcare (and the jobs and economic opportunities it creates) is available everywhere in America.
My experience is that immigrants of all types, like rural Americans, highly value education, particularly for future generations. Innovative educational programs can be developed to meet the common needs of immigrant and rural communities.
There are just a few of the opportunities that come to mind. Obviously, I’m not a labor economist. But, I’m sure that if immigrant advocates concentrate on ways to actively engage and integrate immigrants into solving problems and improving the quality of life in rural and small-town America there are many other great opportunities for success out there just waiting to be tapped.
Immigrants have always been “part of the solution” rather than “part of the problem” in America. After four years of counterproductive unrestrained bigotry, false narratives, and hate-driven lies, its time for “truth, justice, and the American way” to come to the forefront again.
Trump administration begins effort to strip work permits for immigrant spouses
By Tal Kopan
WASHINGTON — After nearly two years of delays, the Trump administration is moving ahead with its plan to strip work permits for the spouses of many high-skilled visa holders, an effort that could jeopardize tens of thousands of immigrants families in California alone.
Rolling back the permits could have sweeping consequences for the Bay Area, where tech companies heavily rely on high-skilled immigrants. Many of those workers come to the U.S. with spouses and children, and the loss of the spousal work permits could imperil many families’ ability to stay in the country or be convinced to come work here.
The step forward for the regulation comes as a federal appeals court ran out of patience with the administration’s delays in issuing it.
The proposed regulation was officially sent to the White House for review on Wednesday, a government database shows. The procedural step means that the Department of Homeland Security has completed its work on the policy and is ready for its official publication. The White House will now put the regulation through review with other agencies, a process that can take anywhere from days to months, depending on the complexity of the regulation.
At issue are work permits for nearly 100,000 immigrants who are here with spouses working on a high-tech visa and seeking a green card. (Spouses and children of H-1B visa holders have H-4 visas granting residence.) The largest share of those, nearly 30,000 of them, live in California, according to a Congressional Research Service report.
In 2015, the Obama administration created the H-4 employment authorization document, or H-4 EAD as it’s commonly known, to allow those spouses to work until the family can get green cards. Getting those permanent residency permits is a process that can often take many years, especially for immigrants of countries like India and China that send a lot of high-skilled talent to the U.S. In the meantime, their spouses are unable to work legally in the U.S. unless they have an employer who can separately sponsor them for a visa.
Since going into effect, there have been more than 90,000 immigrants approved for work permits under the program.
President Trump pledged early on to rescind the H-4 permit program, but the administration has been delayed in doing so. As it continued to promise the regulation would eventually come, a lawsuit challenging the program has been on hold in the courts.
That changed in December, when the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals stopped granting the Department of Homeland Security extensions and ordered that the case proceed. A group of technology workers called Save Jobs USA who argue the program jeopardizes American jobs sued the Obama administration and, after losing in D.C. federal court, appealed the case. The Trump administration after taking power had successfully had it postponed until December.
The reasons for the delay, and sudden step forward, are not entirely clear. Government lawyers had assured the court the rule was being written and reviewed, it was just taking time. In September, the lawyers had predicted a rule would be out in three months. The first briefs in the case are due in March.
Experts suspect that with the government finishing a separate rule blocking immigrants who might use public benefits, and with the lawsuit moving forward, the work was expedited. Once the rule is published, the government could argue the court should indefinitely postpone the lawsuit, as the underlying regulation is being rewritten. That would avoid the chance that the appellate court decides the program is legal, setting a precedent contrary to the objectives of the Trump administration.
“The agency doesn’t want to risk having a judicial ruling that would go against it,” said Natalie Tynan, an attorney with Hunton Andrews Kurth who worked in the Department of Homeland Security for over 11 years. “In general from an agency’s perspective, the agency prefers to issue its regulations rather than have the courts opine on what the regulations should say. So any opportunity to moot out litigation is a positive one for the agency.”
Fifteen members of California’s Congressional delegation signed a letterurging the Trump administration to preserve the permit program last year. They included Reps. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose and Ro Khanna, D-Fremont. Eshoo and Lofgren introduced legislation late last year to keep the H-4 program in place.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency within the Department of Homeland Security that manages the program, said the agency is “committed to upholding our nation’s immigration laws, helping ensure they are faithfully carried out, and safeguarding the integrity of our immigration system designed to protect the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers,” according to spokeswoman Jessica Collins.
She would not comment on the substance of the regulation, but noted that nothing would be final until the regulatory process is complete.
Once the White House signs off on the draft regulation, it will be published in the Federal Register. That will start a clock on a comment period, usually 30 to 90 days, after which the administration legally has to review the comments and make any necessary revisions. Only after that can the regulation be finalized, and litigation could potentially hold it up for months or years longer.
Still, the uncertainty of future job status and symbolism of the proposal from the Trump administration could have immediate ripple effects for families that rely on the visas and the companies that are already struggling to attract top talent.
“If you have 100,000 people who are extremely well-educated and on the path to getting green cards, and are either indirectly stimulating economic growth or directly creating jobs for native-born Americans by starting companies in this country, why would you pull out the rug from all these people?” said Doug Rand, co-founder of Boundless, a tech startup designed to help immigrants navigate the legal system. Rand also worked on the original H-4 regulation in the Obama administration.
Rand pointed out that by rule, only families already approved for green cards qualify for the work visa, meaning the government has already determined there are no Americans who could be working the high-skilled job. The spouses are only ineligible for work because of the lengthy backlog that exists for countries including India.
More than 93 percent of those affected are women, which especially concerns advocates. Lofgren has also co-authored legislation that would eliminate per-country green card caps, helping to alleviate the backlog.
“It undermines the agency and dignity of these spouses and it harms their career prospects, it leaves them less empowered to leave abusive situations,” said Amanda Baran, an attorney and advocate with the San Francisco-based Immigrant Legal Resource Center and a veteran of the Department of Homeland Security.
“It limits the success of women,” Baran continued. “I feel like it’s just another part of Trump’s larger agenda, which is to expel immigrants, prevent them from coming in and make life uncomfortable for them here and compel them to leave.”
So much for the Trump Administration’s bogus claim that it favors legal immigration or wants a “merit based” immigration system. No, “White Nationalist Nation” is staunchly xenophobic. But, they often choose to lie about that, like most other things.
The Trumpsters actually probably can convince high-skilled workers who contribute to our society and our economy to take their skills elsewhere: Canada, China, Mexico, etc.
A new report from New American Economy (NAE) shows that immigrants in the City of Alexandria paid $364.6 million in taxes in 2016, including $262.4 million in federal taxes and $102.2 million in state and local taxes. The report was produced in partnership with the City of Alexandria Workforce Development Center and the Alexandria Economic Development Partnership.
In addition to their financial contributions, the new report, New Americans in Alexandria, shows the role that the immigrant population in Alexandria plays in the local labor force, as well as their contributions to the city’s recent population growth. Though they account for 28 percent of the city’s overall population, immigrants represent 32.3 percent the city’s working age population and 30.5 percent of its employed labor force. The report also shows that over half of the city’s population growth in between 2011 and 2016 is attributable to immigrants.
Foreign-born residents paid $364.6 million in taxes in the City of Alexandria in 2016. Immigrant households earned $1.4 billion in income in 2016. Of that, $262.4 million went to federal taxes and $102.2 million went to state and local taxes, leaving them with $998.8 million in spending power.
Immigrants were responsible for 52.0 percent of the total population growth in Alexandria between 2011 and 2016. Over those 5 years, the overall population in the city increased by 10.8 percent, while the immigrant population increased by 22.2 percent.
Despite making up 28.0 percent of the overall population, immigrants played an outsize role in the labor force in 2016. Foreign-born workers represented 32.3 percent of Alexandria’s working-age population and 30.5 percent of its employed labor force that year.
Immigrants are overrepresented among entrepreneurs in the city. Despite making up 28.0 percent of the population, immigrants accounted for 34.2 percent of all entrepreneurs in the city in 2016, generating $79.4 million in local business income.
Immigrants play a critical role in several key industries in the city, including in STEM fields. Foreign-born workers made up 62.2 percent of all workers in construction, 48.3 percent of all workers in hospitality and recreation, and 41.4 percent of all workers in healthcare. They also made up 21.4 percent of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) workers.
40 percent of immigrants over the age of 25 had a bachelor’s degree or higher in 2016, and 19.2 percent had an advanced degree.
Over one third of immigrants in the city—36.3 percent, or over 15,000 individuals— were naturalized citizens in 2016.
Over one third—31.2 percent—of refugees aged 25 and above in the city held at least a bachelor’s degree in 2016. 10 percent held an advanced degree.
The US Refugee Resettlement Program — A Return to First Principles:
How Refugees Help to Define, Strengthen, and Revitalize the United States
Donald Kerwin
Center for Migration Studies
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The US refugee resettlement program should be a source of immense national pride. The program has saved countless lives, put millions of impoverished persons on a path to work, self-sufficiency, and integration, and advanced US standing in the world. Its beneficiaries have included US leaders in science, medicine, business, the law, government, education, and the arts, as well as countless others who have strengthened the nation’s social fabric through their work, family, faith, and community commitments. Refugees embody the ideals of freedom, endurance, and self-sacrifice, and their presence closes the gap between US ideals and its practices. For these reasons, the US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) has enjoyed strong, bipartisan support for nearly 40 years.
Yet the current administration has taken aim at this program as part of a broader attack on legal immigration programs. It has treated refugees as a burden and a potential threat to our nation, rather than as a source of strength, renewal, and inspiration. In September 2017, it set an extremely low refugee admissions ceiling (45,000) for 2018, which it had no intention of meeting: the United States is on pace to resettle less than one-half of that number. It has also tightened special clearance procedures for refugees from mostly Muslim-majority states so that virtually none can enter; cynically slow-walked the interview, screening, and admissions processes; and decimated the community-based resettlement infrastructure built up over many decades (Miliband 2018). At a time of record levels of forced displacement in the world, the United States should model solidarity with refugees and exercise leadership in global refugee protection efforts (Francis 2018a, 102). Instead, the administration has put the United States on pace to resettle the lowest number of refugees in USRAP’s 38-year history, with possible further cuts in fiscal year (FY) 2019.
This report describes the myriad ways in which this program serves US interests and values. The program:
saves the lives of the world’s most vulnerable persons;
continues “America’s tradition as a land that welcomes peoples from other countries” and shares the “responsibility of welcoming and resettling those who flee oppression” (Reagan 1981);
promotes a “stable and moral world” (Helton 2002, 120);
reduces spontaneous, unregulated arrivals and encourages developing nations to remain engaged in refugee protection (Gammeltoft-Hansen and Tan 2017, 42-43); and
promotes cooperation from individuals, communities, and nations that are central to US military and counter-terrorism strategies.[1]
In that vein, the report describes the achievements, contributions, and integration outcomes of 1.1 million refugees who arrived in the United States between 1987 and 2016. It finds that:
the median household income of these refugees is $43,000;[2]
35 percent of refugee households have mortgages;
63 percent of refugees have US-born children;
40 percent are married to US citizens; and
67 percent have naturalized.
Comparing the 1.1 million refugees who arrived between 1987 and 2016 with non-refugees,[3] the foreign born, and the total US population, the report finds:
Refugees’ labor force participation (68 percent) and employment rates (64 percent) exceed those of the total US population (63 and 60 percent respectively).[4]
Large numbers of refugees (10 percent) are self-employed and, in this and other ways, job creators, compared to 9 percent for the total US population.
Refugees’ median personal income ($20,000) equals that of non-refugees and exceeds the income of the foreign born overall ($18,700).
Refugees are more likely to be skilled workers (38 percent) than non-refugees (33 percent) or the foreign born (35 percent).
Refugees are less likely to work in jobs that new immigrants fill at high rates, such as construction, restaurants and food service, landscaping, services to buildings and dwellings, crop production, and private households.
Refugees use food stamps and Medicaid at higher rates than non-refugees, the foreign born, and the total US population. However, their public benefit usage significantly declines over time and their integration, well-being, and US family ties increase.
Comparing refugee characteristics by time present in the United States — from the most recent arrivals (2007 to 2016), to arrivals between 1997 to 2006, to those with the longest tenure (1987 to 1996) — the report finds:
Refugees with the longest residence have integrated more fully than recent arrivals, as measured by households with mortgages (41 to 19 percent); English language proficiency (75 to 55 percent); naturalization rates (89 to 24 percent); college education (66 to 32 percent); labor force participation (68 to 61 percent); and employment (66 to 55 percent) and self-employment (14 to 4 percent).
Refugees who arrived from 1997 to 2006 have higher labor force participation and employment rates than refugees who arrived from 1987 to 1996.[5]
Refugees who arrived between 1987 and 1996 exceed the total US population, which consists mostly of the native-born, in median personal income ($28,000 to $23,000), homeownership (41 to 37 percent with a mortgage), percent above the poverty line (86 to 84 percent), access to a computer and the internet (82 to 75 percent), and health insurance (93 to 91 percent).
Comparing nationals — in 2000 and again in 2016 — from states formerly in the Soviet Union, who entered from 1987 to 1999, the report finds that:
median household income increased from $31,000 to $53,000;
median personal income nearly tripled, from $10,700 to $31,000;
the percent of households with a mortgage increased from 30 to 40 percent;
public benefit usage fell;
English language proficiency rose;
the percent with a college degree or some college increased (68 to 80 percent);
naturalization rates nearly doubled, from 47 to 89 percent;
marriage to US citizens rose from 33 to 51 percent; and
labor force participation rate (59 to 69 percent), employment (57 to 66 percent), self-employment (11 to 15 percent), and the rate of skilled workers (33 to 38 percent) all grew.
The report also finds that refugees bring linguistic diversity to the United States and, in this and other ways, increase the nation’s economic competitiveness and security.
In short, refugees become US citizens, homeowners, English speakers, workers, business owners, college educated, insured, and computer literate at high rates. These findings cover a large population of refugees comprised of all nationalities, not just particularly successful national groups.
Section I of the report describes the nation’s historic commitment to refugees and critiques the administration’s rationale for dismantling the resettlement program. Section II sets forth the Center for Migration Studies (CMS) methodology for selecting the refugee data used in this report. Section III discusses the resettlement, national origins, and years of arrival of the refugees in CMS’s sample. Section IV details the report’s main findings on the achievements, contributions, and integration of refugees over time. It compares the characteristics of refugees, non-refugees, the foreign born, and the total US population; and examines the progress of refugees — measured in 2000 and 2016 — that arrived from the former Soviet Union between 1987 and 1999. This section also references the growing literature on the US refugee program and on the economic and fiscal impacts of refugees. Section V discusses the important role of voluntary agencies in the resettlement process, focusing on the work of Catholic agencies in building community support for refugees and promoting their entrepreneurial initiatives. Section VI identifies the national interests served by the refugee program, recommends ways to address several of the program’s longstanding challenges, and urges the president, Congress, Americans with refugee roots, and other stakeholders to work to strengthen and expand the program.
[1] Brief for Retired Generals and Admirals of the US Armed Forces in Support of Respondents at 19-21, Trump v. Hawaii, No. 1 7-965 (Mar. 30, 2018)http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.11.
[2] This is less than the median household income of the non-refugee population ($45,000), the foreign born ($56,000), and the total US population ($52,800). However, most refugees enter the United States without income, assets, or English language proficiency, and they advance dramatically over time. This report shows, for example, that the median personal income of refugees who arrived between 1987 and 1996 actually exceeds that of the total US population.
[3] The Center for Migration Studies identified non-refugees by removing persons selected as refugees from the population of all foreign born that entered after 1986, by single year of entry. In each year of entry, it then randomly selected the same number as the number of refugees.
[4] The labor force participation rate refers to the percentage of persons age 16 or over who are employed or seeking work, as opposed to out of the labor force entirely.
[5] The higher labor force participation and employment rates of refugees who arrived from 1997 to 2006 can likely be attributed to the older age of those who arrived from 1987 to 1996 (20 percent age 65 or over). Many of those who arrived in the 1987 to 1996 period had likely retired by 2016.
REGISTER FOR THIS FREE WEBINAR:
WEBINAR
The Contributions of Refugees to the Nation and the Importance of a Robust US Refugee Program
September 6, 2018, 1pm EDT
An employee solders a circuit board. (Dominik Osswald/Bloomberg)
President Trump has repeatedly promised to close the borders to stop undocumented migrants from taking American jobs, so far with only minimal success. Which shouldn’t be surprising. For a half-century, the government has been unable to stanch the flow of illegal migrants working for American companies because it continuously misdiagnoses the problem. Unless the government either holds employers responsible or grants undocumented workers legal rights, there will continue to be undocumented immigrants streaming across the border, no matter how harsh enforcement efforts are.
When we think of undocumented workers, we tend to think of farmworkers or those doing menial service jobs like hotel housekeeping. And yet undocumented workers have been foundational to the rise of our most vaunted hub of innovative capitalism: Silicon Valley.
If any industry should be automated, it would be the high-tech world of electronics. In 1984 the iconic Apple even touted its “Highly Automated Macintosh Manufacturing Facility,” bragging that “A Machine Builds Machines.” Yet Apple’s factory, like all the other electronic factories, was shockingly old-fashioned. There were more robots in Detroit’s auto factories than in Silicon Valley. The flexibility of electronics production in Silicon Valley, despite all the technical wizardry, came from workers not machines.
And while these companies employed many high-skilled, highly paid engineers, Silicon Valley became the tech hub of the world thanks to a very different set of workers. Unlike the postwar industries that created a middle class from union wages, electronics expanded in the 1970s and ’80s through low-cost, often subcontracted, often undocumented labor. Instead of self-aware robots or high-dollar professionals, it was women of color, mostly immigrants — hunched over tables with magnifying glasses, assembling parts sometimes on a factory line, sometimes on a kitchen table — who did the necessary but toxic work of semiconductor manufacturing. Many of the undocumented workers were from Mexico, while many of the documented ones were from there and Vietnam.
Consider Ampex, a leading audio manufacturer, whose 1980s assembly room looked like most in Silicon Valley: all women, and mostly women of color. Automation was not an option because the products changed too quickly to recoup the investment in machinery.
The tools these women used were hardly futuristic. In fact, they were one of the most ancient tools in existence — their fingernails. The women grew their nails long on each hand so that they could more easily maneuver the components onto the circuit boards. Tongs were an option, but fingernails worked better.
The high-end audio at Ampex was made possible by low-end subcontracting. In Quonset huts, temporary workers dropped off and collected subcontracted chemical processing that was too dangerous to be done by regular Ampex employees. The front and back doors of the huts were open, some lazily turning fans were on the ceiling, but otherwise there was no ventilation.
The workers stoked fires beneath vats of chemicals, some of which boiled. In the vats, the subcontracted workers dipped metals and printed circuits, which temps collected and returned to Ampex.
And this wasn’t even the bottom rung of the electronics industry. The bottom-rung of the electronics industry was not in a small factory or a Quonset hut, but a kitchen.
Investigators found that somewhere between 10 and 30 percent of electronics firms subcontracted to “home workers.” Like garment workers taking in sewing in the 1880s, electronics workers in the 1980s could assemble parts in their kitchen. A mother and her children gathered around a kitchen table assembling components for seven cents apiece. These little shops put together the boards used by big companies like Ampex.
The catch: the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) believed that as much as 25 percent of the Silicon Valley workforce (~200,000 people) was undocumented — which meant this thriving industry was routinely breaking the law. The INS tasked John Senko, an 18-year veteran, with opening the agency’s first office in San Jose and eliminating illegal migrant labor in Silicon Valley. Early raids yielded undocumented workers making between $5.50 and $7.50 an hour ($13.60 and $18.55 in 2018 dollars), which, in the lingering recession of the early 1980s, was good money. Americans out of work might not have wanted to be migrant farmworkers, but they did want factory jobs.
The INS encouraged the large companies to cooperate by offering them lenience for giving up their “illegal aliens.” At Circuit Assembly Corporation in San Jose, the INS asked for the names of its noncitizen employees. Of the 250 names, the company suspected that “20 or 30 of them could be using forged papers.” The actual number was 187.
But in a pattern that would repeat itself, and would reinforce the wrong incentive structures, the company received no sanctions or penalties because it cooperated. It replaced those employees with what Senko dubbed “legal workers,” while deporting the rest. The INS moved onto the next company.
This pattern, however, allowed companies to return to hiring undocumented workers once the heat was off. Papers were easy to forge, and employers had no reason to check them too closely. Senko and the INS were understaffed, growing to only a few dozen employees. And there was no real risk to breaking the law without any potential penalty for the company.
In addition to doing nothing to stanch the flow of undocumented workers, by targeting employees, not employers, the INS provoked a fierce backlash. Senko raided not just workplaces but neighborhoods. In Menlo Park, just near Stanford, INS agent blocked the streets, removed “Hispanic males” from cars and from homes, checking them for proof of citizenship. In Santa Cruz, the INS went door to door checking Hispanic citizenship.
These harsh tactics prompted pushback from local governments. In San Jose, officials fought against INS in the name of defending “chicano citizens” against harassment, passing a resolution against “the unwarranted disruption of the business community.” In December 1985, San Francisco declared itself a “sanctuary” and directed its police and officials not to assist the INS in finding “law-abiding” but “undocumented” migrants.
This resistance forced INS agents to enforce the law more selectively. But reducing these broad sweeps actually exacerbated the root problem. It gave Silicon Valley corporations even more power over their undocumented workforce.
Businesses could selectively check green cards against an INS database, or simply hand over troublemakers. This power made it impossible for unions to organize the electronics factories. The spokesman for the International Association of Machinists explained that whenever they tried to organize, the company “threatened to have anyone who joined the union deported.”
So long as undocumented workers remained cheaper and willing to work in worse conditions than American employees, and the risk of employing undocumented labor was nonexistent, enforcement was doomed to fail.
For John Senko, his time in San Jose was “the worst three years of my life.” He came to believe that if he was actually successful in deporting undocumented workers from Silicon Valley “we’d have a revolution.” He preferred, he said, businesses to cooperate rather than to have to raid them, but that missed the point.
“This economy,” former INS head Leonel Castillo told a newspaper in 1985, “was built on the assumption and reality of a heavy influx of illegal labor.” Castillo was not just referring to the electronics industry but the entire economy of the American West.
And that basic reality remains the same today: countless American businesses in a wide variety of industries thrive solely because they can rely on undocumented employees who will work for less in harsher conditions. If we want to reduce competition for American workers from undocumented foreign workers, we must either truly hold employers accountable (which has never been done) or extend workplace rights to noncitizens. Our current system of punishing the undocumented themselves simply won’t stop the problem — no matter how harsh President Trump’s tactics. When some workers count and others don’t, employers will choose the workers that can work cheaper and more dangerously, which, in turn, makes the rest of our work, citizens or not, more precarious.
************************************************
Employer sanctions have now been in effect for more than three decades without effective enforcement. Fact is, they target U.s. employers, rather than their foreign workers. Therefore, not likely to be much “red meat” for the Trump racist base, particularly those who actually employ undocumented individuals. Hypocrisy runs deep in the Trump White Nationalist empire.
Foreign Affairs expert David Ignatius writes in the Washington Post:
“As foreign scientists pull back from some U.S. labs because of visa and government-grant worries, the Chinese are doubling down. According to the second Air Force study, China surpasses the United States in annual patent applications, is now No. 2 in peer-reviewed research articles and in 2014 awarded more than twice as many degrees in science, technology, engineering and math.
China is mobilizing its best tech talent for this global empire. China Telecom plans to lay a 150,000-kilometer fiber-optic network covering 48 African nations. IZP, a big-data company, plans to expand soon to 120 countries. BeiDou, a government agency, is building a GPS-like satellite navigation system for all Eurasia.
There’s an eerie sense in today’s world that China is racing to capture the commanding heights of technology and trade. Meanwhile, under the banner of “America first,” the Trump administration is protecting coal-mining jobs and questioning climate science.
Sorry, friends, but this is how empires rise and fall.”
******************************************
Read the entire, rather sobering, article at the link.
This is what a “Government of Fools” looks and acts like! Trump turns his back on our traditional democratic allies and trade partners to pal around with dangerous dictators like President Xi, President Putin, President Duterte, and President Sisi. But, all the while those guys are making a fool out of him and the US!
“Six months ago I won the lottery — the H-1B visa processing lottery for skilled foreign workers. I called my thrilled parents and celebrated with friends. I’m from northeastern China and have an M.B.A. from Stanford, and was planning to stay in Silicon Valley to help start a company based on a promising new technology to improve the use of data. I was overjoyed because, historically, being selected in the lottery was a near guarantee that an applicant could remain in this country at least three more years.
But at the end of July, I received the dreaded Request for Further Evidence from immigration authorities. I provided the extra information that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services asked for. In September, I got another request. I complied again. Finally, on Oct. 11, half a year after my celebration, I learned I had been denied a visa.
After earning law degrees in China and at Oxford, after having worked in Hong Kong as a lawyer at a top international firm, after coming to United States three years ago for an M.B.A. and graduating and joining a start-up, I was given just 60 days to leave the country. I have 17 days left.
In the past, it was fairly safe to assume that once you were selected in the lottery, your H-1B petition would be accepted by immigration officials. In 2016, this happened about 87 percent of the time. But things began to change in April when the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice announced measures to increase scrutiny of the highly skilled applicants who use the H-1B program, and President Trump signed an executive order calling for federal agencies to suggest reforms to the program.
While it’s unclear exactly what percentage of petitions have been approved so far in 2017, requests for evidence like the ones I received have increased by 44 percent compared with last year, according to immigration statistics, strongly suggesting that more people are being denied than before Mr. Trump took office.
Many of my fellow international students are in situations similar to mine. Some had job offers from companies like Google, Apple and PwC when they learned that their applications had been denied or did not even make it into the lottery. For those whose employers have only United States offices, losing the lottery meant losing jobs and going home, with no real way to use the skills they were on the verge of contributing to the American economy.
And some classmates who, like me, were picked in the H-1B lottery last spring are still waiting for an answer. The Trump administration on April 3 announced that it would suspend the “premium processing” service that, for a fee, guaranteed applicants responses to their petitions within 15 days. This has caused problems for students who needed a quick decision because their work authorization expired over the summer or because they wanted to plan overseas trips that they couldn’t make while their status was in limbo. My mom had surgery for cancer in July, but I simply couldn’t go back to China to be with her and risk being denied at the border upon my return because I didn’t have H-1B approval.
My two requests for evidence asked me to prove my job was a “specialty occupation” — that is, work that only someone with a bachelor’s degree or higher can do. My work involves artificial intelligence and big data, and my letters of support came from an authority in my industry and veteran start-up investor, and a Nobel Prize winner. But it wasn’t enough to convince the government that my job requires advanced skills.
While I gave up my law job and used my savings and my parents’ to pay my Stanford graduate school tuition, in the grand scheme of things, I know my situation is much better than that of many immigrants who are forced to leave this country: Just this week, thousands of Haitians in the United States learned that they may have to return to Haiti as a result of the administration’s decision to strip them of the Temporary Protected Status they were granted while their country recovered from disasters.
It’s true that I’m brokenhearted about missing the chance to return to China to care for my mother (she insisted that I stay and pursue the visa that was her dream for me), but I’m not looking for sympathy. As much as I hate to leave, I know I will be fine.
Rather, I’m frustrated, because I know I’m part of a pattern: America is losing many very skilled workers because of its anti-immigrant sentiment, and while this is a disappointing blow to me and my classmates, it will also be a blow to the United States’ competitiveness in the global economy. Tech giants such as Google and Tesla were founded by immigrants.
I can’t make sense of why an administration that claims to want this country to be strong would be so eager to get rid of us. We are losing our dreams, and America is losing the value we bring.
As I make plans to go back to China, I find myself wondering: If I am not qualified to stay in the United States, then who is?
“Palmer and other H-1B reformers want accountability.
They say US companies must be required to document their searches to fill positions with American workers. Employers must pay prevailing wages and be prevented from subcontracting or outsourcing H-1B jobs.
Reform advocates are pushing for a system of government enforcement and oversight of the H-1B regulations, not one that is reliant on whistleblowers to expose abuse.
Technology is here to stay. And it is changing at warp speed. The demand for smart talent is not going away. That’s why even the biggest critics of H-1B are the most ardent backers of reform, not elimination.
What I hear them saying is the system ought to work the way it used to, when my father obtained an H-1 visa. He was hired for a job he was uniquely qualified for, and he was compensated with a decent wage.
No one wants to see Americans lose their jobs unfairly, and if my father were still alive, I know he’d be troubled by what I learned about the current H-1B program.
I also know he would be heartened to see that some of the most ardent backers of visa reform are Indian Americans. After all, we are the ones who have most reaped the rewards of H-1B.”
**********************************************
The full article, which gives actual examples of both the benefits and the abuses of the H-1B program is a “must read.” Get it at the link.
Several thoughts. I was very critical, and still am, of House Immigration Subcommittee GOP Members for starting off with controversial, “in your face,” and unneeded enforcement-only bills. See http://wp.me/p8eeJm-Qw
Why not instead start with something bipartisan that would be good for America, like H-1B reform. Chairman Grassley in the Senate has expressed strong interest in reforming the H-1B category to eliminate abuses. And, it appears that most major U.S. employers who use H-1Bs also see the need for reform to preserve and improve the program.
Additionally, things like investment visa “EB-5” reform also appear likely to attract support from both sides of the aisle in both houses.
A second thought, why don’t U.S. companies, particularly those started or run by immigrants, which use H-1Bs start the reforms now. “Reverse” the process. Use highly talented H-1B workers to train U.S. workers, particularly in places where the economic rebound has not yet reached, for whatever reason.
For example, in a recent blog dealt with the situation in the small city of Gillette, WY. http://wp.me/p8eeJm-UY The folks seemed nice, optimistic, and interested in a brighter future for their community. But, with or without Trump and his environment-busting policies, coal mining as a way of life is on the way out. I can’t imagine that too many of the younger generation are hanging around places like Gillette.
Why not go in and establish some tech centers using H-1Bs as trainers. Sure, working on a computer in an office isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. I get that. But, it is something that can be done from anywhere.
And, the costs of doing business, at least initially, are likely to be less in a place like Gillette. Increased economic activity brings with it other needs: buildings, houses, markets, auto dealers, repair shops, HVAC technicians, public servants, schools, teachers, etc. So, there could be something for everyone, even those who don’t want to work at a desk all day.
Maybe, it’s time for those who want immigration reform to stop talking and whining and start doing. Things that demonstrably work and help folks out build their own bases of support. That’s better than trying to convince folks with statistics and pie charts!
An employee solders a circuit board. (Dominik Osswald/Bloomberg)