Border Enforcement – Page 108 – immigrationcourtside.com

Mexico Searches For Equilibrium With New Administration!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/top-mexican-official-warns-of-a-new-era-in-relations-with-the-us-under-trump/2017/01/09/71658602-8bed-47c4-9ebe-7bd04d5dd631_story.html

“In his speech Monday, Videgaray asserted Mexico’s importance to the United States and vowed to defend his country’s sovereignty. As examples of the benefits of trade and immigration, he cited the close relationship between auto plants in Mexico and Michigan, Mexican companies that have invested in Dallas, and the key role played by Mexican workers in the milk industry in Wisconsin.

Trump has criticized American companies for moving factory jobs to Mexico, and threatened to impose a “border tax” on firms that make products there bound for U.S. markets. Ford recently announced that it had canceled plans for a $1.6 billion plant in Hermosillo, Mexico, after Trump’s repeated criticism of Ford and other companies. The Mexican government is concerned that it will lose manufacturing jobs due to measures proposed by Trump.

“We are going to negotiate with great self-confidence; without fear, knowing the economic, social and political importance that Mexico has for the United States, and we are going to negotiate with intelligence and common sense,” Videgaray added.

He said he wanted to make it clear that “these millions of Mexicans who have emigrated to look for work are not as they have been described — criminals — but they are productive people who represent in the majority of cases the best of Mexico.”

PWS

01/09/17

David Leopold Warns About Possible Five-Point Attack On Immigrants By Attorney General Sessions

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/five-chilling-ways-senator-jeff-sessions-could-attack-immigrants-as-attorney-general_us_5870022ce4b099cdb0fd2ef7

“As the nation’s top lawyer, head of the immigration court, and civil rights officer, Jeff Sessions would have access to multiple tools to harm immigrants and undermine due process. Given his rhetoric and record as a United States Senator, as well as his association with anti-immigrant extremists, there is every reason to believe he would use all of them.

Here are five ways Sessions could attempt to undermine immigrants and immigration policy if confirmed as Attorney General:

Impose his radical, anti-immigrant ideology on decisions by the federal immigration courts;

Expand the number of immigrants who are deported even though they qualify for a green card or asylum;

Reduce access to legal counsel and information about immigrants’ legal rights;

Criminalize immigrants by bringing trumped up charges against ordinary workers; and

Strong arm state and local police to become Trump deportation agents

Of course, any attempt Sessions would make to undermine civil and due process rights will be met by strong litigation from the outside. But the U.S. Senate should block his confirmation from the start, as Senator Sessions is highly unqualified for this position and has showed a profound disregard for civil and human rights.”

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

Sorry, David, but Jeff Sessions has the votes to be confirmed as the next Attorney General. Those who don’t like that can rant, but that’s not going to change the reality that Donald Trump won the Presidential election and the Republicans firmly control both Houses of Congress.

When you lose elections at the national and state levels, like the Democrats did, you end up with next to no leverage on appointments or policies unless you can reach across the aisle and strike a chord with at least some Republicans. Right now, it appears that all Republican Senators, and probably a few Democrats, ewill vote for Senator Sessions’s confirmation. Whatever his pros and cons, Senator Sessions appears to have had the wisdom to be polite and cordial to his colleagues and to occasionally reach across the aisle on issues of common interest. Rightly or wrongly, that seems to count for a lot when current or former Senators come up for confirmation to Executive Branch positions.

So barring a “bombshell” next week, and I must say his record has been “flyspecked” — regardless of what he put in the Judiciary Committee questionnaire — that’s unlikely. For better or worse, Senator Session’s views on a wide variety of subjects and his conduct as a public servant over many decades are a matter of public record. Nothing in that record seems to have given pause to any of his Republican Senate colleagues.

That being said, it woulds be nice to think that upon hearing some of the criticisms, Jeff Sessions will reflect on the huge differences between being a Senator from Alabama, the Attorney General of Alabama, and a U.S. Attorney for Alabama, and the wider responsibilities of being the chief law enforcement official, legal adviser, and litigator representing all of the People of the United States, not just the Trump Administration.

David is, of course, correct to focus on Attorney General Session’s vast authority over immigration. He will control a huge and critically important U.S. Immigration Court System currently sporting a backlog of more than one-half million cases and suffering from chronically inadequate judicial administration and lack of basic technology like e-filing. While there certainly is an interrelationship among civil rights, human rights, and due process in the Immigration Courts, there is every reason to believe that Attorney General Session’s biggest impact will be in the field of immigration.

If things go as David predicts, then the battle over fundamental fairness and due process in immigration policy and the Immigration Courts is likely to be fought out in the Article III Federal Courts, which, unlike the Immigration Courts, aren’t under Executive control. That will have some drawbacks for everyone, but particularly for the Trump Administration.

And, if Sessions is wise, he’ll look back at what happened when the Bush Administration tried to promote a “rubber stamp” approach to justice and due process in the Immigration Courts. The U.S. Courts of Appeals were outraged at the patent lack of due process and fundamental fairness as “not quite ready for prime time” cases were “streamlined” and thrown into the Courts of Appeals for review with glaring factual errors and remarkable legal defects. Not totally incidentally, this also dramatically increased their workload, with judicial review of immigration matters occupying a majority of the docket in several prominent circuits.

As a result, cases were returned to the Board of Immigration Appeals, who then returned them to the Immigration Courts for “re-dos,” in droves. The Courts of Appeals lost faith in the Executive’s ability to run a fundamentally fair, high quality Immigration Court System, and basically placed the Immigration Courts into “judicial receivership” until things stabilized at least somewhat. The waste and abuse of taxpayer dollars caused by this “haste makes waste” approach was beyond contemplation and, for a time, threatened to paralyze the entire American justice system.

Additionally, it would be a huge mistake for the Trump Administration to view the Bush Administration’s Immigration Court debacle as the product of “bleeding heart liberal appellate judges” appointed by President Bill Clinton. The criticism from Article III Judges cut across political lines. Two of the most outspoken judicial critics of the Bush Administration’s handling of the U.S. Immigration Courts were Republican appointees: then Chief Judge John M. Walker, Jr. of the Second Circuit and Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit. Indeed, Judge Walker is a cousin of former President George H.W. Bush.

Obviously, those who favor greater immigration enforcement won the election and are going to have a chance to try out their policies. But, “enhanced enforcement” is likely to be effective only if we have a fair, impartial, and totally due process oriented Immigration Court System.

In other words, the Immigration Courts must be a “level playing field” with judges who, in the words of Chief Justice Roberts, play the role of “impartial umpires” between those seeking to stay in our country and those seeking to remove them. Results from such a due-process oriented system would be more likely to inspire confidence from the U.S. Courts of Appeals, thereby increasing the stature of the Immigration Courts and their ability to achieve final resolutions at the initial, and most cost-efficient, level of our justice system. Due process and fairness in the Immigration Court System should be a nonpartisan common interest no matter where one stands on other aspects of the “immigration debate.”

We are about to find out what Attorney General Jeff Sessions has in mind for the U.S. Immigration Courts and the rest of the U.S. justice system. I’m hoping for the best, but preparing to assert the essential constitutional requirement for due process in the Immigration Courts if, as David predicts, it comes under attack.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

01/07/16

Guess Who’s Going To Pay For That “Great Wall?” — Surprise: We Are, As Reported By CNN! — President Elect Trump blames “Dishonest Media!”

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/border-wall-house-republicans-donald-trump-taxpayers/index.html

“Washington (CNN)President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team has signaled to congressional Republican leaders that his preference is to fund the border wall through the appropriations process as soon as April, according to House Republican officials.

The move would break a key campaign promise when Trump repeatedly said he would force Mexico to pay for the construction of the wall along the border, though in October, Trump suggested for the first time that Mexico would reimburse the US for the cost of the wall.
Trump defended that proposal Friday morning in a tweet, saying the move to use congressional appropriations was because of speed.

“The dishonest media does not report that any money spent on building the Great Wall (for sake of speed), will be paid back by Mexico later!” Trump tweeted Friday.”

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

President Elect Trump promises that he will negotiate “full reimbursement” from Mexico at a later date. Don’t hold your breath. Yeah, as the President Elect notes, we’re Mexico’s biggest trading partner; but, Mexico is also one of our biggest. As a fast developing economy, I’m guessing that lots of other countries would be willing to do business with Mexico on favorable terms if the climate in the U.S. gets too stormy.

PWS

01/06/16

Will Workplace Immigration Raids Return Under Trump Administration?

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/illegal-immigrants-raids-deportation.html?mabReward=A4&recp=0&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&region=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine&_r=0

“But as President-elect Donald J. Trump prepares to take office and promises to swiftly deport two million to three million undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes, bipartisan experts say they expect a return of the raids that rounded up thousands of workers at carwashes, meatpacking plants, fruit suppliers and their homes during the Bush years.

“If Trump seriously wants to step up dramatically the number of arrests, detentions and removals, I think he has to do workplace raids,” said Michael J. Wishnie, a professor at Yale Law School who represents detainees in civil rights cases.

Since the election, Mr. Trump has suggested that he plans to focus on deporting criminals. “What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers,” he told CBS News in November. “We’re getting them out of our country.”

But Mr. Trump’s advisers have said that to promptly reach his target number of deportations, the definition of who is a criminal would need to be broadened. In July 2015, the Migration Policy Institute, a bipartisan think tank, estimated that of the roughly 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally, 820,000 had criminal records — a definition Mr. Obama mostly adhered to during his second term, evicting some 530,000 immigrants convicted of crimes since 2013.

Mr. Trump would need to expand the basket to include immigrants living in the United States illegally who have been charged but not convicted of crimes, those who have overstayed visas, those who have committed minor misdemeanors like traffic infractions, and those suspected of being gang members or drug dealers.

Targeting workers for immigration-related offenses, such as using a forged or stolen Social Security number or driver’s license, produced a significant uptick in deportations under Mr. Bush. But the practice was widely criticized for splitting up families, gutting businesses that relied on immigrant labor and taking aim at people who went to work every day, rather than dangerous criminals.”

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

There is no statutory or other widely accepted definition of a “criminal alien.” As shown by this article in the NY Times, it could be narrow — covering only those who are actually removable from the United States by virtue of their crimes — or broad — covering anyone who has ever had contact with the criminal justice system and is potentially removable, regardless of whether there was a conviction or whether the crime itself is the ground for removal. For example, “driving with an expired license” is not a ground for removal. But, an undocumented individual arrested for “driving without a license” could be referred by the state or local authorities to the DHS to be placed in removal proceedings before a U.S. Immigration Judge. If the Immigration Judge finds that such an individual has no legal status in the United States, and that individual cannot establish that she or he is entitled to some type of relief from removal, the Immigration Judge must enter an order of removal, regardless of the circumstances of the arrest or the overall equities of the case.

PWS

01/04/17

The Numbers Are In — DHS FY 2016 Enforcement Stats Confirm that Obama Administration is #1 In Removals!

http://immigrationimpact.com/2017/01/04/deportation-numbers-2016/

Joshua Breisblatt writes on Immigration Impact:

“Last week, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued its Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 immigration enforcement data which, coupled with the previous years’ totals under the Obama Administration, show that the total number of removals from FY 2009 to FY 2016 totaled more than 2.7 million. Simply stated, President Obama has deported more people than any other president in U.S. history.

However, underneath those numbers belie some important lessons about the changing dynamics of who is showing up at the U.S. border and how a November 2014 enforcement priorities memo shaped the number of people deported from the interior of the nation.

. . . .

This means, more would-be-asylees are arriving at the U.S. border, rather than economic migrants as in years’ past. Yet, many are being denied asylum or put through expedited deportation processes, both unworthy of the nation’s commitment to protect those in need.

Also of note, the number of individuals picked up and deported from the interior of the country is on the decline, likely due to the 2014 enforcement priorities memo that sought to avoid deporting individuals who posed no threat and have strong economic and community ties in the U.S.”

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

How much enforcement is enough? Never enough, according to some. Others disagree and think we’re going way overboard. As the Trump Administration is probably going to find out, “immigration enforcement” is more often than not a “can’t win” political proposition.

PWS

01/04/17

Is Trump’s Plan To Remove 3 Million “Criminal Aliens” Achievable?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-trumps-plan-to-deport-criminal-noncitizens-wont-work/2017/01/03/b68a3018-c627-11e6-85b5-76616a33048d_story.html?utm_term=.4810f9c58fbd

“No,” says Professor and Immigration Practitioner Kari Hong of Boston College Law School in this op-ed in the Washington Post:

“If Trump truly wants to focus on drug dealers, terrorists, murderers and rapists, he should call on Congress to restore immigration law’s focus on those whom prosecutors and criminal judges determined were dangerous in the first place — people who were sentenced to five years or more in prison. That’s what the law used to be, before it was changed in 1996 to cover many more crimes.

Instead of penalizing immigrants for minor crimes, immigration law needs to separate contributing immigrants from their non-contributing peers. Those who pay taxes, have children born in the United States, serve in the military, work in jobs American citizens will not take or help those around them need a path to legalization. Those who cause more harm than good should be deported. Restoring proportionality and common sense to immigration law would certainly help make America great again.”

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

Go over to ImmigrationProf Blog and the Washington Post at the above link and get the whole story.

PWS

01/04/17

Family Detention, Raids, Expediting Cases Fail To Deter Scared Central Americans!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/central-americans-continue-to-surge-across-us-border-new-dhs-figures-show/2016/12/30/ed28c0aa-cec7-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html?utm_term=.077ef694fd73

“Immigration advocates have repeatedly criticized the Obama administration for its increased reliance on detention facilities, particularly for Central American families, who they argue should be treated as refugees fleeing violent home countries rather than as priorities for deportation.

They also say that the growing number of apprehended migrants on the border, as reflected in the new Homeland Security figures, indicate that home raids and detentions of families from Central America isn’t working as a deterrent.”

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

The “enforcement only” approach to forced migration from Central America has been an extraordinarily expensive total failure. But, the misguided attempt to “prioritize” cases of families seeking refuge from violence has been a major contributing factor in creating docket disfunction (“Aimless Docket Reshuffling”) in the United States Immigration Courts. And, as a result, cases ready for trial that should have been heard as scheduled in Immigration Court have been “orbited” to the end of the docket where it is doubtful they ever will be reached. When political officials, who don’t understand the Immigration Court and are not committed to its due process mission, order the rearrangement of existing dockets without input from the trial judges, lawyers, court administrators, and members of the public who are most affected, only bad things can happen. And, they have!

PWS

12/31/16

Deportations Down in 2016 — Focus on Criminals in the Interior is Key — But, Some Question Gov’s Broad Concept of “Criminal”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/barack-obama-deportations-2016_us_58668157e4b0eb5864890a03?section=us_politics

“DHS officials themselves say the falling interior deportation numbers reflect the Obama administration’s policy of focusing their efforts on removing people with criminal histories.

Virtually all of the people deported from within the interior of the United States ― 92 percent ― had been convicted of a crime that put them within one of ICE’s top three priorities for removal.

But ICE’s top priority removal category includes people convicted of the offenses of illegal entry and reentry ― non-violent crimes that don’t distinguish them much from other undocumented immigrants. DHS officials did not immediately provide a breakdown of the criminal offenses deportees had been convicted of.

The number of deportations has also dropped in recent years partly because the number of people trying to enter the country has plummeted. Border Patrol apprehended about 408,900 people in the 2016 fiscal year, which is generally considered an indicator of how many people attempted to enter without authorization. In 2000, agents picked up nearly 1.7 million people trying to cross the border illegally.

A growing share of those who do cross illegally into the United States are Central Americans, who often seek asylum or other humanitarian relief. Their cases can take years to wind their way through backlogged immigration courts and do not result in swift deportations. In 2016, border agents apprehended more Central Americans than they did Mexicans, a switch that happened for the first time in 2014.”

PWS

12/30/16

Writing In “The Hill,” BIA and Congressional Staff Vet Nolan Rappaport Says Trump Must Combine Legalization With Interior Enforcement to Succeed

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/311994-thanks-to-obamas-immigration-legacy-trump-inherits-our-home

“As of the end of Nov. 2016, the average wait time for a hearing was 678 days. President-elect Trump will have to reduce the population of undocumented immigrants to a manageable level with a very large legalization program before he will be able to address the home free magnet.

Also, so long as immigrants who want to come here illegally think that they will be safe from deportation once they have reached the interior, they will find a way to get past any wall that he builds to protect our border.”

Nolan’s thoughtful article gives a great summary of the prosecutorial discretion (“PD”) programs put into effect by the Obama Administration. Although Nolan is is OK with the concept of PD, he believes that by formalizing and publicizing the PD program, the Obama Administration has given a “home free” signal to undocumented migrants who reach the interior of our country. Nolan believes that this acts as both a magnet for undocumented immigration and a barrier to effective immigration reform legislation.

I agree with Nolan that removal of most of those with cases backlogged on the Immigration Court dockets will prove impractical. I also agree with him that the huge backlogs and lengthy waiting times for hearings have robbed the Immigration Court system of credibilty. But, with due respect, I tend to doubt that addressing “the home free magnet” is the primary answer to a workable system.

First, I think that human migration is an historic phenomenon driven primarily by forces in sending countries which we do not control. Addressing the “root causes” of these problems has proved elusive. Efforts to provide assistance through foreign governments have been largely unsuccessful because of endemic corruption and lack of the necessary infrastructure. Efforts administered by the State Department and USAID within foreign countries have shown some promise, as described in one of my earlier blogs (12/26/16). Yet, to date, they appear to be too labor intensive and too limited in the number of individuals who can be reached to have a major effect on migration patterns.

Additionally, I doubt that migration will be controlled without legislative changes and expansion of our legal immigration system to better match supply with demand. Currently, the demand for immigration by U.S. citizen and lawfully resident families, U.S. employers, and displaced or threatened individuals in foreign countries far exceeds the supply of available visas. Continued immigration is a reality and, in fact, a necessity for our nation’s prosperity. Until there is a better balance between supply and demand, individuals will, as Nolan suggests, continue to breach any walls or interdiction systems that we can construct. And, differing from Nolan, history shows that they also will evade interior enforcement efforts which, in any event, will prove to be costly, ineffective, disruptive, and unacceptable from a civil liberties standpoint.

Yes, I know this isn’t what folks, particularly those “outside the Beltway,” want to hear. But, the fact that my message might be unpopular in today’s climate doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m wrong.

Immigration is a complicated issue that will require thoughtful, creative, cooperative, and human-oriented solutions. Merely doubling down on enforcement, whether popular or not, will not give us control over human migration.

On an historical note, I greatly appreciate Nolan’s citation and link to the July 15, 1976 memorandum on prosecutorial discretion from INS General Counsel Sam Bernsen to Commissioner Chapman, which I wrote. Go to the link and check out the initials at the end. Oh, for the “good old days” of “real” carbon copies!

PWS 12/28/16

From Huffington Post: Here Is What Life (For those Lucky Enough to Survive) is Like in Rivera Hernandez, Honduras, One of the Most Dangerous Places in the World, Where the U.S. State Department and the USAID Are Working to Reduce Migration Push Forces At Their Roots — How Dangerous Is The Gang Violence That Forces Families to Flee to the US? — Check Out This Quote (Not For the Squeamish)!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/honduras-gang-violence-teenagers_us_585d6274e4b0d9a59458288d

“It’s Christmas week in Rivera Hernandez, a place that’s been described as one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the world. How dangerous? About two weeks ago, and not that far from this street party, a young woman’s seminude body was found underneath a tree ― just her body. The 18-year-old’s head was resting on a branch a few feet above her corpse. The neighborhood consensus, whispered quietly, is that this latest horror was most likely a message from one of the five gangs that have divided much of Rivera Hernandez into fiefdoms.”

No wonder families are making the dangerous journey to seek asylum in the U.S. And, not surprisingly, they aren’t “deterred” by walls, fences, detention centers, asylum denials, removals, or the dangers of the journey. Not to mention that individuals fleeing for their lives have a right under U.S. and international law to seek asylum at our borders or within the U.S.

I had plenty of situations involving fears of this type of grotesque harm, in Central America and elsewhere, come before me at the Arlington Immigration Court and the BIA. Yes, it would be great if there were more efforts like the State Department/USAID programs described here to solve the root causes of migration and create incentives for individuals to remain in, and prosper, in their home countries. But, that’s going to take a much larger investment than we’ve made to date.

PWS

12/25/16

Is President Elect Trump Causing a “New Border Surge?”

http://www.wsj.com/articles/central-americans-surge-at-border-before-trump-takes-over-1482489047

This article from the Wall Street Journal suggests that the election of Donald Trump is helping fuel a new “border surge” of migrants anxious to get here before the “border closes.” While I’m sure that Trump’s election has had some effect “in the margins,” particularly as a marketing tool for human smugglers, I tend to doubt that the election has had a major impact. It’s fairly normal for law enforcement and policy officials to overestimate the effect of government policies and under-weigh the root causes of most human migration — conditions in foreign nations that are largely beyond our national control.

Take, for example, the Mariel Cuban Boatlift. While many attributed the cause to President Jimmy Carter’s famous (or infamous) “welcome them with open arms statement,” what actually fueled the migration was Fidel Castro’s unileateral decision to open the Cuban port of Mariel to northbound boats. I was working at the “Legacy INS” at that time. We seized boats (enough to start dozens of marinas), fined owners and operators, opened detention camps for new arrivals, recruited “Temporary Immigration Judges” to handle increased deportations and asylum claims, and instituted criminal prosecutions. But, the flow went on, largely unabated, until Castro decided to close the port of Mariel.

“‘It’s a humanitarian crisis, a drug crisis, a security crisis. We’re going to have to deal with that issue immediately,’ said a member of Mr. Trump’s transition team.” I think that’s correct — migration and border enforcement are complex issues usually with a large humanitarian component. Such problems are unlikely to be solved by building more walls and fences, installing more sensors, hiring more Border Patrol agents, or opening new detention centers.

PWS

12/25/16

THERE IS NO “IMMIGRATION CRISIS” – U.S. POPULATION STABLE – MIGRATION WELL WITHIN HISTORIC LEVELS — IMMIGRATION FUELS A GREAT FUTURE FOR THE U.S.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/us-population-growth-is-lower-than-at-any-time-since-the-great-depression/2016/12/21/5267e480-c7ae-11e6-85b5-76616a33048d_story.html?utm_term=.188da004f316

This article from today’s Washington Post confirms what many of us already knew – there is no “immigration crisis” in America. Rather, our aging population is stable, and immigration (despite a modest uptick since the recession) remains within historic norms. This ties in with respected demographer Robert Warren’s research and conclusion that notwithstanding the so-called “Border Surge” beginning in 2014, U.S. immigration has remained well within historic norms (link below).

Today’s article also states “the United States will need to invest in immigrants who are helping to shore up the younger segment of the labor force.” In other words, we “geezers” are going to need a continuing flow of immigrants to support Social Security and Medicare, as well as to take jobs as nursing assistants, home health care workers, and caretakers for the elderly that few Americans seem to want. When was the last time you heard a high school student say that he or she aspired to a career as a home health care provider – although I see such individuals daily in our neighborhood and know that they are providing essential services to my neighbors in need?

This also fits in with an article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal pointing out how Latino entrepreneurs and businesspeople – some of them immigrants – have become a key economic force propelling our future greatness as a nation (see below).

Sure, deporting serious criminals from the United States is a worthy goal and one that I have personally participated in to the extent appropriate under law. The current Administration has done as good job of this. Some would say too good a job, and that cases of relatively minor, non-violent offenders with crimes such as petty theft, receiving stolen property, or possession of marijuana or cocaine, should not have been pushed into an already overcrowded Immigration Court System.

But, the foregoing article suggests to me that rather than fixating on how we might get rid of millions of other undocumented migrants who are law abiding contributors to our society, or looking to further restrict legal immigration as some have advocated, we should be modifying our laws to create additional opportunities for legal immigration that would serve our country’s future. Moreover, a larger and more rational legal system, with shorter waiting periods, would encourage individuals to “use the system” rather than attempting to circumvent it.

PWS

12/23/16

http://cmsny.org/warren-immigration-surge-illusory/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-latino-drivers-of-economic-growth-1482363118

–

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: