Quartz – immigrationcourtside.com

Ananya Bhattacharya @ QUARTZ: Yes, Trump’s B.S. White Nationalist Attack on Immigrants, Using COVID-19 as a Pretext, Will Harm U.S. Workers & the U.S. Economy, Says New Study by U.C. San Diego Profs!

https://apple.news/ATn0lgkBSTay-a1C2lMlh4A

Ananya writes in QUARTZ:

GOOD FOR YOU

A new study shows Trump’s anti-immigration policies will end up hurting the US

The Donald Trump administration’s planned measures to help American graduates find jobs during the Covid-19 pandemic may backfire in the long term.

Over the past couple of months, the US government has proposed several restrictions on foreign skilled workers, which it believes will open up opportunities for locals. However, a recent University of California San Diego immigrant rights study (pdf) has said immigrant rights enhance the lives and livelihoods of native workers in many ways such as improvement in incomes, sparking innovation, reducing crime and increasing tax revenues.

“We find there are several areas where strengthening migrant worker rights benefits native-born workers, outweighing any costs borne by them,” researchers Gaurav Khanna and Anna Brown found.

The research comes after Trump hit pause on immigration into the US via employment and family routes in April, affecting more than 20,000 people each month. A May 7 letter from a group of four Republican senators urged Trump to suspend the Optional Practical Training programme (OPT), which allows international students to work in the US for up to three years. Six days later, the New York Times reported Trump is considering barring the issuance of new visas in certain employment-based categories, including H-1B.

Here’s a break-down of how hurting immigrant sentiment is tied to the welfare of the US economy:

Entrepreneurship and innovation

Any change to immigrant laws could hurt the US’s long-term plans around innovation and new ventures because giving immigrants legal permanence and a sense of stability incentivises local investments.

“These new businesses may lead to an increase in jobs and a larger tax base,” the researchers said. “While much of the literature has focused on the potential of H-1B visa-holders to develop new patents and technologies, there is strong evidence suggesting that this relationship between immigration and innovation holds more broadly.”

Around 45% of Fortune 500 companies have been founded by immigrants or children of immigrants. These companies amass more than $6 trillion in revenue per year and include tech giants like Google-Alphabet, Microsoft, Tesla, and Apple. A previous study by Khanna revealed that hiring H-1B workers was strongly associated with firms introducing newer products.

Threat of reverse brain drain

The report also says America’s talent crunch could worsen if foreign professionals are not retained.

“When the US crisis abates, there may be a scarcity of high-skill professionals, which could stall a robust recovery,” Khanna, co-author and assistant professor of economics at the school of Global Policy and Strategy (GPS), said in a June 4 press release.

Silicon Valley’s gaping tech skills gap has long been plugged by foreign talent.

Back in 1994, the number of computer scientists in the US who were born abroad was less than one in 10. By 2012, the share was up to a quarter.

Most tech workers are employed under the H-1B programme, which is only renewable for up to six years. Workers who are not on track for a green card have to return home. “Such forces, set into motion by the six-year H-1B limit, have shifted production from the United States to India,” the research states. Extending the H-1B limit or making the green card process easier would allow employers to retain this high-skill talent.

And it’s not just about Silicon Valley. The IT sector has downstream effects on other industries that use software, such as banking and manufacturing.

Higher wages, more jobs for locals

The presence of immigrants had a more favourable effect on incomes, the researchers found. A study conducted by the US Department of Labor showed that granting legal status to migrant workers resulted in their wages rising by 15.1%.

Restrictions on the H-1B will have an outsize effect on Indians, who receive three-quarters of the visa, but they wouldn’t be the first group to fall prey. Historically, Chinese, European, and Mexican labour flow into the US has been limited or stopped altogether based on unsubstantiated evidence about these workers depressing wages.

“Often, such policies have been motivated by resentment against foreign workers; however, this fear may be based on false perceptions and lack of evidence,” the authors of the paper write. “This resentment may also be driven by racial prejudices and xenophobia.”

However, the reality is that protecting migrant workers from exploitation eventually levels the playing field between immigrants and non-immigrants. “Migrant workers, who are not legally protected, face much lower wages compared with their native counterparts,” according to Khanna. “This is detrimental to US-born workers, who are less likely to be hired. Ensuring migrant workers have substantial rights inadvertently helps US-born workers as well.”

A better tomorrow for America

Less crime: Trump has often tried to draw a link between immigrants and rising crime rates. But there is little truth in these claims. Between 1970 and 2010, increases in immigration in US metropolitan areas were correlated with decreases in both violent (homicides, assaults, etc) and property crimes (burglary, motor vehicle theft, etc), past research shows. Then, a 2007 studyfound that incarceration rates are lower for immigrants and far lower for newly arrived immigrants.

More taxes: Contrary to popular belief, undocumented migrant workers pay taxes, mostly income taxes, which are estimated to be at $11.7 billion. This number would rise by $2.2 billion if undocumented migrants were granted legal status. For a country with $804 billion in fiscal debt, every penny counts.

Future workforce: Children of currently undocumented individuals who are born in the US can join the country’s workforce, adding to productivity and expanding the tax base.

Quartz Daily Brief

Subscribe to the Daily Brief, our morning email with news and insights you need to understand our changing world.

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

I’ve featured this particular study in prior posts. https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/06/06/debunking-the-trump-regimes-white-nationalist-myths%EF%B8%8F-furthering-protecting-immigrants-rights-benefits-society-bogus-covid-19-visa-rest/

But, Ananya’s summary is so highly relevant and beautifully written that it deserves its own post. One of her most important points: “[T]he reality is that protecting migrant workers from exploitation eventually levels the playing field between immigrants and non-immigrants.”

I’ve pointed out to my students that bigger investments by the Feds in Wage & Hour and OSHA enforcement, as an alternative to expensive, inhumane, wasteful, and often counterproductive civil immigration detention and enforcement, is something that a wiser and more intellectually honest Administration should consider in the future, in combination with a more robust and realistic legal immigration system.

PWS

06-09-20

PROFILES IN WHITE NATIONALIST COWARDICE: At Time Of World’s Greatest Need, Trump Administration Resettled Zero (0) Refugees In October – “There couldn’t be a worse time for it. The UN estimates there are around 26 million refugees worldwide, many of whom are victims of torture or women and girls fleeing persecution or violence.”

https://apple.news/A9iGP0BvrTqCp47JtaKz2Wg

Natasha Frost reports for Quartz:

ACCESS DENIED

Not a single refugee was resettled in the US last month

The nosedive is the result of a State Department freeze on admissions, according to a World Relief press release, resulting in hundreds of canceled flights and yet more uncertainty for the thousands of refugees hoping to resettle in the US. The department has issued an admissions ceiling of 18,000 for the financial year 2020—the lowest in almost 30 years, and well below the number of displaced people already in the pipeline to be resettled in the US. (Ceilings for 2018 and 2019 were 45,000 and 30,000, respectively.)

There couldn’t be a worse time for it. The UN estimates there are around 26 million refugees worldwide, many of whom are victims of torture or women and girls fleeing persecution or violence. Others may be victims of the war in Syria, where the withdrawal of US troops has generated chaos and further devastation. Barely half a percent of the 26 million will be resettled at all, and even then only after a process of intensive screening from admitting states, noted Filippo Grandi, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, in a statement released yesterday. “At a time of record forced displacement in the world, lower admissions constrain UNHCR’s ability to deliver on its refugee protection mandate and diminish our humanitarian negotiating power at the global level,” he added.

While states are barred from expelling asylum seekers or returning them “to any country in which they would face persecution,” they are under no legal obligation to accept any number of refugees. In the mid-1960s, the early years of modern refugee programs, according to the Center for Migration Studies, the US representative to the UN described the proper, legal treatment of refugees and asylum seekers as a “credit” to the US, rather than “a burden.” In recent years, however, the US government has come to see these obligations as a humanitarian headache—one that places an undue toll on US taxpayers.

In 1980, when records began, the US admitted more than 200,000 refugees to a country of around 270 million people. Nearly 30 years on, the US population has risen more than 40%, while the number of refugees resettled is down by more than 80%.

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

There is simply no end to the Trump Administration’s sleazy, selfish, cowardly, cruelty. Under Trump, the U.S. has gone from a humanitarian beacon to the leader of the “race to the bottom.”

PWS

11-05-19

ANA COMPOY @ QUARTZ — WHILE YOU WERE SLEEPING, JEFF SESSIONS WAS HARD AT WORK DISMANTLING DUE PROCESS IN THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM — We’re Headed For a Monumental Train Wreck In The “REAL” Article III Courts As Sessions Tries To Force “Kangaroo Court” Work Product Down Their Throats (Again) — I’m Quoted In This Article

https://qz.com/1223294/jeff-sessions-is-quietly-remaking-the-us-immigration-system/

It’s been a busy week for Jeff Sessions. The US attorney general is deploying his broad powers to remake the US’s immigration system instead of waiting for Congress to pass legislation.
Late Tuesday, he filed a lawsuit against the state of California, for its policies limiting cooperation between state officers and federal immigration agents. “Federal law is the supreme law of the land,” he said in a speech in Sacramento on Wednesday.
Far more quietly, on Monday, Sessions took the unusual step of digging up an old legal decision that affirmed asylum-seekers’ right to a make their case in court—and cancelled it. That little-noticed move has the potential of doing more to further Trump’s efforts to deport undocumented immigrants than his attack on so-called sanctuary jurisdictions like California.

Sessions’s choice to revisit the four-year-old case on Monday was not explained in his three-paragraph announcement. A Justice Department spokesperson tells Quartz that the decision which Session overruled had “added unnecessary cases to the dockets of immigration judges, who are working hard to reduce an already large immigration court backlog.”
The mountain of pending immigration cases, which now stands at nearly 670,000, has emerged as a major bottleneck for Trump’s administration. Regardless of their legal status, many immigrants are entitled to a day in court under the law. With US immigration courts chronically understaffed, that can take years. Many applications will likely be processed more quickly—and denied—if asylum-seekers aren’t given the chance to argue their case.
The Matter of E-F-H-L

As head of the Department of Justice, Sessions oversees the country’s immigration courts, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA,) where parties can contest immigration judge decisions. Unlike federal or state courts, the immigration court system is not part of an independent judicial branch, but embedded within a president’s administration.

Critics—including many immigration judges—say that setup makes the court system vulnerable to political interference, and there’s evidence that both Democratic and Republican administrations have done that to further their goals.
Among the attorney general’s powers is the ability to single-handedly overwrite any decisions by the BIA, as Sessions did on Monday. The decision he is zeroing in on is related to a case dubbed “Matter of E-F-H-L,” after the initials of the person who brought it to the appellate body. E-F-H-L, a Honduran immigrant, requested asylum. He appeared before an immigration court, but didn’t get a chance to testify because the judge determined E-F-H-L had no chance of getting asylum based on his application.
E-F-H-L appealed the decision to the BIA, which found that the judge had dismissed the case prematurely. An asylum applicant, it said in its decision, “is entitled to a hearing on the merits of the applications, including an opportunity to provide oral testimony and other evidence.” By striking it, Sessions is signaling that giving asylum seekers that chance is no longer required.
Paul Schmidt, a former immigration judge, says it’s important to hear out asylum applicants even if their case doesn’t look very solid on paper. Many of them—around 20% whose cases were decided in fiscal 2017—don’t have a lawyer, and are not familiar with the kind of information that should be included in the application. Others don’t even speak English. “You can’t always tell how the case is coming out just by looking at the application,” he said.
But another retired immigration judge, Andrew Arthur, welcomed the apparent change. “Given the fact that an asylum merits case can take anywhere between two hours and several days, this authority will allow those judges to streamline their dockets and complete more cases in a timely manner,” he wrote in a post for the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that advocates for reducing undocumented immigration.
Sessions’s decision also appears to target the asylum system in particular, which he’s said is being gamed by people with false claims. The precedent it sets is bound to make it more difficult for asylum seekers to make their case.
Administrative closure

Sessions’s sudden interest in E-F-H-L also appears to be related to a tool immigration judges often use referred to as “administrative closure.” That’s when a judge decides to put a case on the back burner instead of immediately deciding whether a person can stay in the US or should be deported.
There are several reasons why judges might delay a case’s decision. Sometimes rescheduling helps them organize their crowded docket; other times an immigrant may be in the middle of a visa application with US Citizen and Immigration Services, in which case it makes sense to wait until that process is completed, says Lenni Benson, a professor at New York Law School.
That appears to have been E-F-H-L’s case. In its decision, the BIA ordered the judge to give E-F-H-L a proper hearing, but by that time, he had applied for a family-based visa and didn’t want to follow through on his asylum claim. So the judge put the case in administrative closure. In his Monday decision, Sessions argued that since the immigrant is no longer applying for asylum, his case should be put back on the docket and resolved.
It seems odd that the head of the Justice Department would make time in his busy schedule to single out an obscure four-year-old case. But Benson says it fits within a broader effort to remove judges’ ability to put a case on hold.
Earlier this year, Sessions used his authority to pluck another case, this one involving a Guatemalan minor, to question the use of administrative closure. He is currently asking for input before taking any action, however. (Several groups, including the Safe Passage Project, a non-profit where Benson runs a program to train pro bono lawyers to represent immigrant youth, have filed a brief advocating for Sessions to keep the practice.)
If he doesn’t, the group of affected immigrants would be much broader than just asylum seekers. The use of administrative closure expanded during the Obama presidency. Because that administration’s focus was on criminals, the cases of many undocumented immigrants with a clean record became lower priorities. Administrative closure essentially took those immigrants off the list of deportation targets, even if their legal status remained unchanged.
The Trump administration, however, has made it clear it’s going after everyone who is in the country illegally. With efforts to change immigration law stalled in Congress, Sessions appears to be doing everything he can administratively to carry out Donald Trump’s vision.

HomeOur PicksPopular

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

As Judge Arthur acknowledges, a “real” Due Process asylum merits hearing takes from two hours to two days — a big deal. So, his solution is to eliminate the hearing and thereby the respondent’s only chance to fully present her or his case.

Even if the respondent loses before the Immigration Judge, he or she is entitled to an appeal to the BIA and review in the Court of Appeals. Sometimes the BIA and more often the Circuit Courts disagree with the legal standards applied by the Immigration Judge. How does a respondent make a showing of what evidence supports his or her claim if not allowed to testify on that claim?

Haste makes waste. During the Ashcroft regime, there DOJ also attempted to short-circuit Due Process by “streamlining” cases, primarily at the BIA level. The result, as I have noted before, was a tremendous mess in the Circuit Courts, as court after court found that the records sent to them for review were rife with legal errors, incomplete, inadequate, or all three.

The result was tons of remands that essentially tied up large portions of the Federal Court System as well as the DOJ on cases that were “Not Quite Ready For Prime Time.” However, many individuals who did not have the resources to appeal their cases all the way to the Circuit Courts were illegally removed from the US without receiving the fair hearings guaranteed by statute or the Due Process guaranteed by our Constitution.

Sessions, with the encouragement of folks like Judge Arthur, seems to be determined to repeat this grotesque abuse of American justice. However, this time there is a “New Due Process Army” out there with some of the top legal minds in the country prepared to fight to stop Sessions and his cohorts from violating the Constitution, our statutes, our values, and the rights of the most vulnerable among us.

Harm to one is harm to all!

PWS

05-08-18

Quartz Media Reporter Ana Campoy “Nails” The Obama Administration’s Failed Southern Border Strategy — “We like to advertise ourselves as a beacon of liberty and justice; it’s time we acted that way.” (Quoting Me)

THE LAW IS THE LAW
The US doesn’t have an immigration problem—it has a refugee problem
Ana Campoy January 18, 2017

http://trac.syr.edu/whatsnew/email.170117.html

Quote boxes:

“In fact, Trump’s fixation with blocking illegal immigration from Mexico, which has plummeted in recent years, obfuscates the problem. Yes, border patrol agents are apprehending thousands of people every month along the US-Mexico line, but many of them—around half, according to Claire McCaskill, a member of the US Senate’s homeland security and governmental affairs committee—turn themselves in voluntarily asking for help. Government statistics bear this out. The number of immigrants claiming fear of persecution or torture in their home countries is on the rise, and so are the findings that those claims are credible. In order to be considered for asylum by an immigration judge, immigrants first have to go through a “credible fear” screening, in which an asylum officer determines whether the claims they are making have a “significant possibility” of holding up in court.

More than 70% of those who claimed credible fear in the 2016 fiscal year hailed from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, places beset by rampant violence.

Under US law, individuals who are found to have credible fear have the right to due process to determine the validity of their claims in the court. Whether they are Syrians escaping civil war, or El Salvadorans fleeing from criminal gangs, what they have to prove is the same: that they face persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

But US authorities don’t always take Central American immigrants’ fears seriously, studies suggest. One, released by the American Immigration Lawyers Association in 2016, found that not all border patrol agents are asking immigrants if they’re afraid to return to their country, as they are required to do. Other agents refuse to believe them, per the report, which is based on immigrant testimony documented by the group. Another 2016 analysis, by the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, a government advisory body, noted, “outright skepticism, if not hostility, toward asylum claims” by certain officers, among other practices that may be resulting in deportations of refugees with a legitimate right to stay.

A US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) spokesman said the agency “strives to treat every person we encounter with dignity and respect.” Anyone with concerns about the treatment doled out by its officers can call the agency, he added.”

. . . .

“The Obama administration’s response has already run up against the law. For example, several courts have shot down the government’s arguments and efforts to justify the detention of children and families while their cases wait to be resolved—a policy meant to convince would-be immigrants to stay home.

On Jan. 13, a coalition of immigrant rights groups filed a formal complaint with the Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties accusing CBP officers of turning back people requesting asylum at ports of entry along the US-Mexico border. In what the groups called an “alarming new trend,” the officers have allegedly been telling immigrants that they can’t enter the country without a visa— contrary to US law—and referring them to Mexican immigration authorities.

Trump has framed his border policy as a choice between enforcing existing laws against illegal immigration or skirting them. But the decision facing US leaders is rather more complicated: Should the US continue providing refuge to those who are unfairly persecuted in their home countries?

If Americans are unwilling to do that, perhaps it’s time to do away with the nation’s asylum laws—and remove the famous poem at the base of the Statue of Liberty welcoming the world’s “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

Recently retired immigration judge Paul Wickham Schmidt put it this way: “We like to advertise ourselves as a beacon of liberty and justice; it’s time we acted that way.”

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

In my view, Ana Campoy provides a remarkably clear and well-documented analysis of why the Obama Administration’s “get tough” border policies have failed, and why the Trump Administration would be wise to take a more “nuanced” approach that recognizes our obligation to provide due process and protection under our laws to individuals fleeing from the Northern Triangle.

As incoming DHS Secretary Gen. John Kelly has recognized, this problem can’t be solved just by (even more) enhanced enforcement on our end. It will require addressing the systemic problems in the sending countries of the Northern Triangle, which certainly have most of the characteristics of “failed states,” as well as working with other stable democratic nations in the Americas to fashion meaningful protections, inside or outside the asylum system, for those who are likely to face torture, death, or other types of clear human rights abuses if returned to the Northern Triangle at present.

It’s not an easy problem to solve, and there are no “silver bullets.” But, we know what doesn’t work. So, it sure seems like it would be a good idea to try different approaches (and I don’t mean repealing asylum protections as Ana, somewhat facetiously suggests near the end of her article).

PWS

01/19/17

Related posts:

Related posts:

Harm to one is harm to all!

Related posts:

Related posts: