The Hill – Page 7 – immigrationcourtside.com

N. RAPPAPORT IN THE HILL: Trump Follows In Bush’s & Obama’s Footsteps By Sending National Guard To The Southern Border

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/382136-by-sending-national-guard-to-border-trump-follows-bush-obama

Nolan writes:

. . . .

Trump isn’t the first president to use the National Guard this way. Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama did it when they were presidents. Their National Guard operations were successful, and Trump’s probably will be too, if his operation is similar to theirs.

Apparently, the Border Patrol feels that way too. According to Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, experience has shown that the military can supplement the work of agents on the ground.

We do not know yet how the troops will be used. The memorandum gives the secretary of Defense, working with DHS and the attorney general, 30 days to submit an action plan detailing what resources and actions are needed, including federal law enforcement and U.S. military resources.

. . . .

In any case, it doesn’t make sense to use the number of apprehensions as the criterion for determining how secure the border is. What about the aliens who were not apprehended? There is no way of knowing how many aliens succeeded in making an illegal entry without being detected by the Border Patrol.

Ultimately, Trump’s decision to send Border Patrol agents to the border should not be considered unusual or inhumane. Instead, it is a continuation of his existing immigration policies and even presidential precedent.

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

As Nolan points out, sending the National Guard to the border is neither unusual nor unprecedented. But, that doesn’t mean it’s smart, effective, or cost efficient.

I’m aware of no hard evidence that sending the National Guard makes any long-term difference in border enforcement or security.

A number of commentators have also questioned whether the somewhat marginal short-term enforcement benefits of sending troops outweighs the substantial costs and negative perception issues. See e.g.,

https://www.dailysignal.com/2014/07/16/sending-military-border-good-idea/

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2018/04/08/what-happened-when-bush-obama-sent-troops-to-mexico-border/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/03/trump-mexico-wall-military-guards-obama-bush-not-first-president

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160421171156.htm

I see no evidence of any real security crisis at the Southern Border. Certainly, Trump’s panic about the so-called “Caravan” (actually largely made up of desperate women and children) is totally bogus, apparently based on over-hyped reports by Fox News.

It’s obvious that having blown the chance to get funding for his Wall, Trump is looking for some way to hype a non-existent “Southern Border Crisis” to show his base that he hasn’t given up on his racist approach to immigration. He also keeps raising his bogus claims that we need to further truncate the already too limited existing rights of children and asylum seekers and expand the “New American Gulag.” What total BS

There is an ongoing humanitarian crisis in the Northern Triangle causing individuals to undertake the journey North. That’s been going on for many years, and is almost certain to continue as long as folks like Trump are in charge. It’s not like Obama or Bush helped the situation either. Indeed, the US policy toward Latin America has been screwed up during my entire lifetime and shows no signs of changing.

Nothing Trump does is going to change that. Indeed, by almost any rational measure, Trump’s enforcement bluster is likely to make the situation even worse. As a number of commentators have pointed out, if Trump actually goes through with his stated wish to expel Hondurans and Salvadorans currently here in TPS status, that would almost certainly further destablilize both countries, further strengthen the hands of gangs, and guarantee an even larger northward flow.

PWS

04-09-18

THE HILL: NOLAN SAYS SESSIONS’S “PRODUCTION QUOTAS” CAN’T SOLVE BACKLOG – HE’S RIGHT!

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/381616-immigration-judge-quotas-will-not-eliminate-the-backlog-crisis

Nolan writes:

. . . .

But here’s a better reason to oppose the quotas: Session’s performance goals are not an effective way to deal with the backlog crisis.

As of March 5, 2018, there were approximately 350 judges, and the immigration court had 684,583 pending deportation cases.

If the judges do 700 cases-a-year, it will only dispose of approximately 245,000 cases-a-year. At that rate, it would take almost three years to eliminate the backlog … if there are no new cases. But there will always be new cases.

Sessions also will hire more judges, but the problems the immigration court is having with the current judges should be addressed first to determine whether the selection process needs to be changed.

From FY2013 through FY2017, 379 complaints were filed against the judges, approximately 30 percent of the judges every year!

Also, there are gross disparities in the way the judges are applying the law.

TRAC Immigration reports that the outcome at asylum hearings over a six-year period depended largely on which judge was assigned to the case.

For the 6,922 asylum seekers whose applications were adjudicated at the San Francisco Immigration Court, the likelihood of a denial varied from only 9.4 percent up to 97.1 percent, depending on which judge handled the case.

For the 1,233 individuals whose cases were heard at the Newark Immigration Court, the likelihood of a denial ranged from 10.9 percent up to 98.7 percent, depending on which judge handled the case.

In other words, the likelihood of being granted asylum in these courts could be as high as 90 percent or as low as 3 percent, depending upon which judge handles the case.

According to a Reuters report on disparities in how frequently immigrants are deported in removal proceedings, “the findings underscore what academics and government watchdogs have long complained about U.S. immigration courts: Differences among judges and courts can render the system unfair and even inhumane.”

GAO makes similar findings in its November 2016 report on variations in the outcomes of applications across immigration courts and judges. GAO also found that judges with 7 years of experience were 28 percent less likely to grant asylum than less experienced judges, which could be a factor in explaining the disparities.

Are unqualified judges being hired? Is the training program for new judges inadequate?

To some extent, the problem may be due to misconduct on the part of officials involved in the selection process.

For instance, in 2004, the Justice Department paid $11.5 million to settle a class action suit claiming that the immigration judge hiring practices of the Executive Officer for Immigration Review were discriminatory. Four years later, Monica Goodling from the Office of the Attorney General admitted that she had taken political considerations into account in soliciting candidates and reviewing applications.

In any case, it is apparent that Sessions isn’t going to eliminate the backlog crisis by setting performance goals or hiring more judges. He has to reduce the number of cases the immigration court has to handle.”

. . . .

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

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

Nolan’s points are well taken! He’s asking the types of obvious questions that folks genuinely interested in fixing this system should be asking. But, significantly, Jeff Sessions isn’t asking those types of questions!

The current Immigration Court system needs thoughtful quality control and due process targeted reforms on many levels, including a real merit-based hiring system — preferably run by the Article III Federal Courts. After all, the Federal Courts are the “ultimate consumers” of the Immigration Court’s work product.

According to the recent GAO study, it currently takes an average of two years — fully half of an Administration — to hire an Immigration Judge! That’s longer than the Senate confirmation process!

Sessions has promised but not delivered on yet another bureaucratic opaque system that would supposedly reduce the hiring cycle to 10 months, still ridiculously long. At most, IJ hiring should be on a 3-6 month cycle.

By comparison, in 1995 when I was hired, then EOIR Director Tony Moscato and Attorney General Reno had the Chairman and eight additional Board Members (“Appellate Immigration Judges”) hired, background cleared, and actually on board within a six month period — even though it involved a regulations change to increase the number of Board Members.

And, it’s certainly not that the current process produces remarkable results in terms of either diversity or background. Nearly 90% of the Immigration Judges hired over the past 10 years have come from very similar government backgrounds — mostly DHS and DOJ attorneys.

Attorneys from the private sector and academia, even those with superior qualifications, effectively have been systematically excluded from the 21st Century Immigration Judiciary. As Nolan pints out, the system cries out for judges of the highest caliber and universal reputations for fairness and scholarship as well as the ability to deal in an effective professional manner with the many “performing artist” aspects of running a fair courtroom in a stressful high volume system.

Additionally, a comprehensive 2016 report by Human Rights First (“HRF”) found that the appropriate number of case completions per Immigration Judge should be no more than 500 per judge to produce fair, high quality decisions that would meet the criteria for judicial review. So, why, without even referencing that report or reaching out to HRF, would Sessions & Co. create a “quota” that is 140% of that optimum number?

Here’s a link to the HRF Report:

HRF-In-The-Balance

How is this about building a real due process court system rather than a “deportation railroad?” Obviously, Sessions is only interested in the latter.

HRF actually went to experts involved in the Immigration Court system. Sessions, who has never been an Immigration Judge and disrespects most of those actually involved in the system, apparently invented his “quotas” without any meaningful input from any of the folks who actually work in and use the system.

As Nolan points out, the “wheels are coming off” the Immigration Court system. Mindless, “haste makes waste,” just pedal faster” invectives from Sessions can’t and won’t solve the problem.

That’s why Congress must create an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court — devoted to the only true purpose any court system can have: guaranteeing fairness and due process for all individuals appearing before it! That has nothing whatsoever to do with fake assembly line “production quotas!”

PWS

04-04-18

THE HILL: A Different Approach to DACA? Nolan Asks Whether Redefining DACA In Terms Of Special Immigrant Juvenile (“SIJ”) Provisions Could Save The Day?

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/380265-trump-dems-can-solve-the-daca-problem-by-redefining-it

Nolan writes:

“. . . .

It might be more productive at this point to put negotiations about DACA and DREAM Acts aside and try a different approach. My suggestion is to work on creating a place in the Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) program for the DACA participants.

This little-known humanitarian program makes lawful permanent resident (LPR) status available to undocumented alien children in the United States who have been abused, abandoned, or neglected by one or both parents and who should not be returned to their own countries.

. . . .

DACA

Undocumented aliens were considered for the DACA program if they:

Were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;

Came to the U.S. before reaching their 16th birthday;

Have continuously resided in the U.S. since June 15, 2007;

Were physically present in the U.S. on June 15, 2012, when they filed their DACA applications; and

Had no lawful status on June 15, 2012.

The aliens in both programs came to the United States as children and humanitarian relief is warranted in both situations to prevent them from having to return to their own countries. The SIJ aliens would be returning to abuse, neglect, or abandonment; and the DACA aliens spent their childhoods here and know no home other than America.

The need for the new category would end when all of the DACA participants have been taken care of, but this should not be a problem. Section 1059 of the FY2006 National Defense Authorization Actestablished Special Immigrant status for Iraqi and Afghan nationals who had served as translators for the U.S. Armed Forces, and the need for that program will end when the translators are no longer needed.

Trump’s Framework

The first pillar of Trump’s framework is the legalization program.

Putting the DACA participants in the SIJ program would facilitate a compromise on Trump’s pillar requiring an end to chain migration.

The SIJ provisions take away a participant’s right to confer immigration benefits on his parents when he becomes an LPR. INA §101(a)(27)(J)(iii)(II)states that, “no natural parent or prior adoptive parent of any alien provided special immigrant status under this subparagraph shall thereafter, by virtue of such parentage, be accorded any right, privilege, or status under this Act.”

This restriction continues even if they naturalize.

It might be necessary to amend this provision to include the rest of the family-based classifications that Trump wants to eliminate, but that would be a much smaller concession than terminating chain migration for everyone.

The other two pillars are the wall and ending the Diversity Visa Program(DVP).

Trump has made it very clear that he will reject any deal that does not include funding for his wall.

Lastly, terminating the DVP should not be a problem. The Democrats have shown a willingness to end that program. Section 2303 of Senator Charles Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) Gang of Eight bill would have repealed the DVP if it had been enacted.

In any case, the parties have nothing to lose from trying this approach.”

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

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

This seems like an interesting idea that could work if, and it’s a big “if,” the parties can get over their respective “all or nothing” approaches.

For the Dems, it gives the Dreamers closure, permanent status, and a path to eventual citizenship. A very big deal!

At the same time, the GOP and Trump basically get three of “Trump’s pillars” in some form or another.

Yes, the inclusion of the “parent bar” could be a sticking point for the Dems. But, it will be at least three to five years after the Dreamers get their “green cards” before any of them would be eligible to naturalize. By that time, both the thinking and the politics behind the issue of status for parents of naturalized U.S. citizens could well change. We would definitely have better data about the “real universe” in terms of numbers.

Even now, many Dreamers no longer have two living parents who would be able to or interested in immigrating. Estimates of “future impact” based on the assumption that each Dreamer would “immigrate” two parents always have appeared wildly exaggerated to me. A “special immigrant program” would provide better data.

Also, once Dreamers become Lawful Permanent Residents and U.S. citizens, they are likely to be in a position favorably to influence the dialogue about parental migration.

PWS

03-27-18

THE HILL: Nolan Thinks “Goodlatte Bill” In House Could Have Room For Compromise!

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/378981-goodlattes-immigration-reform-bill-has-room-for-compromise

Nolan writes:

“Congressman Bob Goodlatte’s (R-Va.) immigration bill, the Securing America’s Future Act (SAFA) may be the last chance this election year to pass a bill that would help the Dreamers. It needs more support, but he should be able to get it from the Democrats.

First, however, he needs to overcome the negative impression some Democrats have of him and his bill, which is expressed in this commentthe ACLU made when SAFA was introduced:

“This bill should be viewed for what it is — an obvious attempt by longtime anti-Dreamer lawmaker Rep. Bob Goodlatte and his allies to derail a legislative solution for Dreamers.

“The policies in the new legislation are a collection of hardline provisions designed to sabotage, rather than advance, the possibility of a bipartisan breakthrough.”

The best approach may be to revise SAFA to include a statutory DACAprogram with a legalization program that would not become available until the bill’s enforcement measures are implemented. Also, Goodlatte should remove enforcement measures that are not needed to prevent a recurrence of what happened the last time the Republicans agreed to a legalization program.”

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

Please go over to The Hill at the link to read Nolan’s complete, much more detailed, analysis of the opportunities for compromise.

PWS

03-19-18

NOLAN @ THE HILL: IF CA WINS “SANCTUARY CASE” THEY MIGHT REGRET IT — The Wrath & Vengeance Of Trump, Sessions, & DHS Could Be Devastating To Communities & Undocumented Populations!

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/377605-even-without-trumps-lawsuit-california-may-have-to-abandon-sanctuary

This case is very risky for Trump. He is likely to lose in the Ninth Circuit, and it is difficult to predict how the Supreme Court would handle this federal vs. state rights issue. Immigration experts on both sides say this lawsuit takes the sanctuary-cities debate into uncharted territory.

The only certainty is that a loss would clear the way for the enactment of more sanctuary laws in California and other states.

Ironically, California’s sanctuary policies make it easier for ICE to find undocumented aliens.

Instead of being spread out across the United States, a quarter of the nation’s undocumented aliens are living in California. California’s labor force has 1.75 million undocumented aliens. Nearly 10 percent of its workers are undocumented aliens. And in 2014, more undocumented aliens lived in Los Angeles County, Calif., than in any other county in the United States.

This would make it easy for Trump to carry out a successful, large-scale enforcement campaign in California to arrest undocumented aliens and impose sanctions on the businesses that employ them, which is likely to be his next step if the lawsuit fails.

California could end up having to abandon its sanctuary policies to protect its undocumented population.

Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an executive branch immigration law expert for three years; he subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years.

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

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

Putting together Nolan’s analysis with that of Professor Peter Markowitz in the preceding article, one can conclude that both sides are likely to come out losers in this contest. We’ll see.

PWS

03-10-18

THE HILL: NOLAN ON EUROPE’S CONTINUING MIGRATION ISSUES!

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/375610-the-migrant-crisis-is-still-a-growing-burden-for-europe

Nolan writes:

“Making the situation worse, pursuant to the EU’s Dublin II regulation, refugees are supposed to apply for asylum in the first EU country they reach, and EU nations are resisting any changes to this regulation that would cause them to receive more migrants.

This has created an impossible burden for Greece and Italy, which have become the main gateways for 1.5 million refugees arriving on Europe’s shores over the last three years.

The EU Commission sought to redistribute 160,000 asylum seekersthroughout the EU from Greece and Italy, but lack of cooperation from other EU nations made it impossible to achieve that goal. When the program ended, only 31,000 refugees had been resettled.

But fewer migrants are coming to Europe. Only 186,768 migrants came in 2017. The following chart provides an overview of arrivals that year.

The numbers have not gone down because fewer people need refuge.

European governments entered into partnership agreements with North African countries in 2017. They offered financial support to them in exchange for stepped-up border patrols and crackdowns on migrant smuggling in their territories.

While these agreements have succeeded in reducing the numbers, it has come at a human cost. In Libya, the launch point for most of the migrant journeys to Europe, migrants intercepted while fleeing from Libya are sent to detention centers. Government and NGO reports have documented widespread physical and sexual violence, more conditions and killings at these centers.

Crime.

In 2016, Germany accepted the largest population of asylum seekers in Europe, but it has not worked out well for Germany. According to a study conducted by the Zurich University of Applied Sciences, the German state of Lower Saxony has experienced a 10.4 percent increase in violent crime.

German criminologists claim that the best way to prevent violent crime among migrants is to provide them with better integration opportunities. It also could help if Germany allowed them to be reunited with their families. Germany recently limited family reunifications.

In view of Europe’s low natural population growth rate, refugee family reunification could be a great benefit by adding to the birth rate in the EU. In the first half of the 1960s, the population of the EU increased by only 0.8 percent a year, and the birth rate is even lower now.

The European economy, meanwhile, is growing, which is producing labor shortages. Europe needs population inflows from outside the EU to increase its workforce.

The EU needs to ensure that the Schengen Agreement does not prevent individual nations from securing their borders, and it should consider making a greater effort to integrate its migrant population.

Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an executive branch immigration law expert for three years; he subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years.”

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

I encourage you to go over to The Hill at the above link to read Nolan’s complete article.

It’s difficult to impossible to solve migration problems solely by working on them at the “receiving” end. I suspect that there will continue to be additional arrivals and more deaths unless and until the problems causing the refugee migration are addressed at the “sending” end.
Seems like the African nations acting as “middlemen” are the only “winners” here. The get paid by the EU for shutting down some routes for refugee migration. In the meantime, I suspect that they get paid by the smugglers for leaving some routes “open” or “looking the other way.”
Nolan’s point that Europe’s economic future might well depend on their better integrating migrants is well taken. Generally, the US has done a superior job of integrating migrants into our society. That’s one reason why our economy generally has done better than those of most EU nations.

PWS

02-27-18

THE HILL: NOLAN RAPPAPORT THINKS A COMPROMISE TO SAVE DREAMERS IS STILL POSSIBLE!

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/374580-make-the-compromise-ending-chain-migration-is-a-small-price-to-legalize

Nolan writes:

. . . .

Compromise.

A compromise is possible. It does not have to be a choice between the current chain migration system and a purely merit-based system. The two systems can be merged with the use of a point system.

Visas currently allocated to extended family members can be transitioned to a merit-based point system that provides extra points for family ties to a citizen or LPR. The merit-based aspect of the point system would eliminate the main objection to chain migration, which is that it allocates visas to extended family members who do not have skills or experience that America needs.

Trump’s framework also would terminate the Diversity Visa Program. Those visas could be transitioned to the new point system too.

This would be a small price to pay for a legalization program that would provide lawful status for 1.8 million Dreamers.

Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an executive branch immigration law expert for three years; he subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years.“

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

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

I disagree with Nolan’s statement that extended family members don’t bring needed skills. As David J. Bier of the Cato Institute recently pointed out in the Washington Post, that argument is one of a number of “Myths” about so-called chain migration.

Bier writes:

“MYTH NO. 5
Chain immigrants lack skills to succeed.
In making his case for the president’s proposals last month, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said, “What good does it do to bring in somebody who is illiterate in their own country, has no skills and is going to struggle in our country and not be successful?” This description distorts the picture of immigrants who settle in the United States.

Nearly half of adults in the family-sponsored and diversity visa categories had a college degree, compared with less than a third of U.S. natives. America would lose nearly a quarter-million college graduates every year without the family-sponsored and diversity programs.

Even among the 11 percent who have little formal education, there is no evidence that they aren’t successful. By virtually every measure, the least-skilled immigrants prosper in America. Immigrant men without high school degrees are almost as likely as U.S.-born men with college degrees to look for a job and keep one.

Family-sponsored immigrants are the most upwardly mobile American workers. Whether high-skilled or not, chain or not, immigrants succeed in and contribute to this country.”

I highly recommend Bier’s article

All of my many years of first-hand observation of family immigration at every level supports Bier’s analysis.

Indeed, even if I were to assume that the majority of extended family were so-called “unskilled” (meaning largely that they have skills elite restrictionists don’t respect) that would hardly mean that they aren’t greatly benefitting the US. In many ways, immigrants who perform important so-called “unskilled jobs” essential to our economy but which most Americans neither will nor can do well, are just as important to societal success as more doctors, professors, computer geeks, and baseball players. Fact is, immigrants of all types from all types of countries consistently benefit the US.

That being said, why not try something along the lines that Nolan suggests by taking the Diversity visas and establishing a “pilot program” that combines skills and family ties in a numerical matrix? Then, track the results to see how they compare with existing employment-based and family-based immigration.

PWS

02-21-17

THE HILL: NOLAN RAPPAPORT ON “FGM!”

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/373090-female-genital-mutilation-is-a-crime-in-the-us-so-why-is-it-rarely

Nolan writes:

“. . . .

FGM has been a crime in America since 1996. Federal law provides that, “whoever knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.”

The first federal FGM prosecution, however, was not filed until 2017, when two Michigan doctors and the wife of one of the doctors were charged with performing FGM on two seven-year-old girls.

FGM is a crime under state law in 26 states, but I was not able to find examples of state prosecutions. Attempts to make it a crime in the remaining 24 states have met resistance. It can be difficult to separateattempts to end FGM from claims of Islamophobia.

In Maine, a Republican bill to criminalize FGM failed to pass in 2017 in part because FGM had been used in Maine to demonize immigrants and refugees from predominantly Muslim countries in Africa. It would have made FGM a Class A crime, which is punishable by up to 30 years in prison and a fine of as much as $50,000.

Maine has a population of approximately 12,000 people from Somalia, an officially Islamic country, and UNICEF estimates that 98 percent of the females in Somalia have had FGM.

But a survey of immigrant communities in Maine indicates that they recognize the need for such a law. More than 70 percent of participants said that FGM is harmful.

Political correctness also is an issue. The New York Times would not use the term “Female Genital Mutilation” in its article about the Michigan doctors, except in a quote. The Times called the offense, “genital cutting,” despite the fact that the prosecution was based on a federal criminal provision entitled, “Female genital mutilation.”

According to Celia Dugger, the Times’ Health and Science editor, “genital cutting” was a “less culturally loaded” term than “FGM.”

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a woman’s rights activist, has said, “It is one thing to respect other cultures and religions, and quite another to turn a blind eye to cultural practices that violate the human rights of women and girls.”

The federal and state laws that prohibit FGM need to be enforced.”

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

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

“FGM,” of any type, is “bad stuff” as we found and I wrote in Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996), the first case finding FGM to be “persecution” for U.S. asylum purposes!

PWS

02-09-18

NOLAN RAPPAPORT @ THE HILL: PERHAPS, THE PARTIES NEED TO COME UP WITH A NEW SYSTEM THAT COMBINES “FAMILY REUNIFICATION” WITH “MERIT-BASED” FACTORS!

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/371380-if-dreamers-get-a-deal-it-will-be-because-of-trump-not-schumer

Nolan writes:

“Senator Chuck Schumer (R-N.Y.) has dismissed the White House’s new Framework on Immigration Reform & Border security as a “wish list” for hard-liners. According to Schumer, Trump is using protection for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) participants as “a tool to tear apart our legal immigration system and adopt the wish list that anti-immigration hardliners have advocated for years.”

But Schumer’s own DACA proposal, which he put together as part of the Gang of Six, was just as unacceptable to Trump as Trump’s current proposal is to Schumer.

Schumer rejected Trump’s previous proposal, which was to establish a program for the 690,000 DACA participants that would continue their temporary legal status, and proposed a legalization program for a couple of million Dreamers. Moreover, he offered Trump just $1.591 billion for building a wall, which is only a small fraction of the amount he needs; and did not meaningfully address his chain migration concerns.That was not the first time Schumer has advocated a position he knew would be rejected. Four years ago, he moved his immigration reform bill, S.744, through the Senate despite the fact that it was opposed by 70 percent of the Senate Republicans. It was dead on arrival in the Republican controlled House.

. . . .

This does not have to be an “either or” situation. The visas currently given to extended family members could be transitioned to a merit-based point system that would give extra credit for family ties to a citizen or LPR. Under such a system, aliens who have family ties would be chosen ahead of aliens with similar qualifications who do not have family ties.”

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

Go on over to The Hill at the above link to read Nolan’s complete analysis!

Seems like an idea worth exploring, particularly since current negotiations appear to be running up against a “brick wall.” No, it won’t resolve all of the outstanding issues. But trying to work the concepts of “merit and family” into one system could be a starting point. After all, it’s hard to argue that “family” doesn’t have “merit” — both for the individuals involved and for the U.S.

PWS

01-30-18

THE HILL: Nolan Tells Us How “DACA” Differs From “DREAMERS”

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/370367-the-difference-between-daca-and-dreamers-a-primer

Nolan writes:

“The difference between ‘DACA’ and ‘Dreamers’: A primer

The government shutdown ended Monday when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) promised to take up an immigration bill that would protect an estimated 800,000 Dreamers from deportation under an open amendment process, if the Democrats would agree to end the shutdown. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y) said that pledge was enough for his caucus to accept a three-week government funding bill, which passed on a vote of 81-18.

But what do the parties really intend to take up? A DACA-fix for the 690,000 current participants or a DREAM Act to provide a path to citizenship for 2.7 million undocumented aliens?

And who are the Dreamers?

. . . .

If the Senate passes the DREAM Act of 2017, it almost certainly will be dead on arrival in the House, which is what happened four years ago when Schumer, as part of the Gang of Eight, succeeded in getting an immigration bill passed in the Senate that was opposed by 70 percent of the Senate Republicans.

It would be more realistic to pass a bill that would just continue the DACA program for the current participants, but even that would fail if Trump will not sign it unless it includes a border wall, an end to chain migration, and an end to the Diversity Visa Program.”

In any case, the floor debates and their media coverage will be easier to understand if the senators are clear about who they are trying to help and how they want to help them.”

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

Go on over to The Hill to read Nolan’s excellent explanations of “DACA” and “Dreamers.”

Along the lines mentioned by Nolan, I think an “indefinite DACA extension” for “The Wall” trade might still be a possibility. I actually don’t see Trump refusing to sign something along those lines. But, with Trump, nobody really knows. Might depend on the day.

As suggested by Nolan, a “full Dream Act” would likely be DOA in the House. And, I don’t see the Dems offering up the restrictions Trump wants on legal immigration in return for a narrow DACA extension.

PWS

01-23-18

TAL @ CNN SAYS “GANG OF SIX” STILL WORKING FURIOUSLY TO GET BIPARTISAN SUPPORT AS BUDGET CRISIS LOOMS EVER CLOSER!

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/18/politics/immigration-shutdown-talks/index.html

Tal reports:

“Gang of Six senators furiously trying to nail down support for immigration bill

By: Tal Kopan, CNN

As votes for government funding look perilous in Congress, bipartisan senators behind an immigration deal are furiously working behind the scenes to build support for their bill, hoping it could be in play to avert a shutdown.

The group, an offshoot of the so-called Gang of Six, is “practically sprinting” to get the bill officially introduced, one congressional aide said, and are working to add as many Republican supporters as possible. When the bill was unveiled on Wednesday night, it had picked up four Republicans in addition to the three that worked to develop it.

If all 49 Democrats support the bill, only four more Republicans would be needed to clear the 60 votes required to advance legislation in the Senate.

Even though the bill has already been rejected by the President and Republican leadership, the calculus is that with a standoff on government funding, Republicans will be pressed on why they walked away from a bipartisan deal with votes to pass it when the shutdown blame game begins.

Illinois Democrat Sen. Dick Durbin, one of the lead authors of the bill, met on Thursday morning with the House Problem Solvers Caucus, a bipartisan group of lawmakers who have sought a centrist deal on DACA as well, his office said. Building House support could answer White House chief of staff John Kelly’s criticism that the bill didn’t have support from both sides of Capitol Hill when it was brought to the President last week.

Democrats’ negotiating position got stronger on Thursday when Republican South Dakota Sen. Mike Rounds, who has backed the bipartisan immigration bill, announced he would not vote for a weeks-long short-term funding extension, saying good governance requires a long-term solution instead of short-term fixes.

Rounds joined the bill’s other lead author, South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, in his opposition. With other Republican fiscal hawks traditionally opposed to short-term continuing resolutions, the pressure is lifted off vulnerable Democratic senators up for re-election to vote for a funding deal that even a handful of Republicans aren’t supporting.

The bill would offer a pathway to citizenship for eligible young undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children, allocate nearly $3 billion to a border wall and technology, limit sponsorship of family members by recipients of the program and reallocate diversity lottery visas to other immigration programs.

Advocates are optimistic that the tide has turned in Democrats’ favor in recent days. They argue that the President’s rejection of the bipartisan bill — just days after he was televised telling lawmakers to bring him a deal and he would sign it — combined with the news of Trump referring to certain countries in a disparaging way has only empowered Democrats to stand up.

“In the last 24 hours we’ve sensed a real shift from Republicans not believing Democrats are going to be resolute, to, ‘Oh my god, Democrats are resolute and Republicans are joining in and we won’t be able to pass the CR without negotiation,'” said Frank Sharry, a longtime immigration advocate with America’s Voice Education Fund.”

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

I encourage everyone to go on over to CNN and check out Tal’s many other reports on the DACA process. Tal is so prolific, I just can’t keep up with her, sometimes! But, that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t!

Notwithstanding Nolan’s skepticism about the “Gang of Six” effort, these Senators still think they can get something done and sell it to enough of their colleagues to make a difference! Time will tell! Stay tuned!

PWS

01-18-18

THE HILL: NOLAN UNIMPRESSED BY “GANG OF SIX’S” DREAMER COMPROMISE EFFORT!

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/369403-gang-of-six-daca-bill-is-an-exploitative-political-statement

Nolan writes:

“. . . .

Yet no matter how Flake describes the proposal, it is not a good faith attempt to find common ground with either the majority of congressional Republicans or the president.

Five of the six senators in the Gang of Six were also in 2013’s the Gang of Eight, which showed the same disregard for majority Republican positions when they moved the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, S. 744, through the Senate.

S. 744 was bipartisan too, but it was opposed by 70 percent of the Senate Republicans. Among other things, it would have established a large legalization program without assurance that the aliens being legalized would not be replaced in 10 years by a new group of undocumented aliens.

This has been the sine qua non for Republican cooperation with a legalization program since the failed implementation of the enforcement provisions in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, (IRCA), which legalized 2.7 million aliens.

One of IRCA’s major objectives was to wipe the slate clean and start over with an effective enforcement program. But IRCA’s enforcement measures were not implemented, and by October 1996, the undocumented alien population had almost doubled.

. . . .

Trump wants a physical wall. Virtual walls rely primarily on surveillance technology, which just notifies the border patrol when aliens are making an illegal crossing. They will be in the United States before they can be apprehended, and Trump’s enforcement program suffers already from an immigration court backlog crisis.

A physical wall makes illegal crossings more difficult. While some grown men can climb over a large wall, children can’t, and the dangers involved in climbing over such a wall should deter parents from bringing their children here illegally.

If the Democrats really want to help the DACA participants, they will let Trump have his wall.”

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

I probably see it more the way the Washington Post did in yesterday’s lead editorial. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ignore-the-president-vote-on-the-daca-deal/2018/01/16/55f38288-fb03-11e7-8f66-2df0b94bb98a_story.html

There apparently are enough Democratic and GOP votes to pass the “Gang of Six” compromise. Why be held hostage by GOP legislators who, while perhaps they are a majority of the GOP, are a minority of the total legislature and actually represent a minority position among Americans? Some days Trump says he’ll sign anything Congress passes; other days he doesn’t. So, give him the bill and see what happens. Seems unlikely that he will veto his own budget.

On the other hand, at this point, I’d be willing to give Trump his Wall (but not an end to “chain migration” or permanent cuts in permanent immigration) if that’s what it takes to save the Dreamers. Unlike Nolan, however, my experience tells me that “The Wall” will ultimately be an expensive failure. Whatever the technical difficulties with past “Virtual Walls” might have been, I have to believe that technology, which tends to improve over time, not physical barriers are the wave of the future.

And the real solution to individuals coming here without documents is a more robust and realistic legal immigration program that meets market demands for additional labor and also satisfies our humanitarian obligations.

Most of the current adult so-called “undocumented” residents of the U.S. are gainfully employed in ways that actually help and support the U.S. They are a huge net “plus.” So, why would we want to go to great lengths in a futile attempt to keep folks like them from coming in to help us in the future? Doesn’t make any sense! That’s why we’re in the current situation — unrealistic laws.

The real solution is more legal immigration which would insure that those coming get properly screened and don’t have to use the services of smugglers. Then, immigration enforcement could concentrate on those seeking to come outside the system.

Leaving aside refugees, why would folks come if the job market actually gets to the point where it is saturated and can no longer expand? For the most part, they wouldn’t. But, of course, that wouldn’t satisfy the GOP White Nationalist restrictionists who are operating from a racial rather than a realistic perspective.

PWS

01-18-18

THE HILL: PROFESSOR (& FORMER USCIS CHIEF COUNSEL) STEPHEN LEGOMSKY ON WHY THE TRUMP/SESSIONS FALSE NARRATIVE ATTEMPTING TO DEMONIZE & CRIMINALIZE ALL IMMIGRANTS IS SO TOXIC FOR AMERICA!

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/367269-trumps-lumps-all-immigrants-together-at-americas-risk

Steve writes:

“As we approach the first anniversary of the Trump presidency, a clear pattern emerges.

A Muslim immigrant and her U.S.-born husband kill civilians. Candidate Donald Trump’s reaction was to propose a ban on all Muslim immigrants.

Some refugees commit crimes. His reaction is to bar all refugees for 120 days and drastically cut refugee admissions after that.

A diversity-visa immigrant commits a terrorist act. President Trump‘s reaction is to call for repealing the diversity immigrant program.

A man is admitted under the sibling preference. His accompanying child attempts a terrorist attack years later. President Trump’s reaction is that all “chain immigration” should be banned.

I wonder what his reaction will be if his “merit-based” program becomes law and a person admitted under that program commits a serious crime, perhaps years later. Would President Trump then call for the repeal of the entire “merit-based” program?

The absurdity of condemning an entire group because of the actions of a single member seems self-evident. If a left-handed immigrant commits a crime, no one would propose banning all left-handed immigrants. The real question is whether there is a causal link between the commission of the crime and either the substantive criteria or the processes of the particular program.

No such link exists. For one thing, everyone who seeks admission to the United States under any of these programs is rigorously vetted. I know this firsthand, from my experience as chief counsel of the federal agency that admits immigrants and refugees.

. . . .

Anti-immigrant groups are fond of pointing out that, if an individual who committed a crime had never been allowed to enter, the crime would not have occurred. And that is true. But that observation could be made about any admission program. No matter how strict the criteria or how rigorous the vetting, there is always some possibility, however remote, that a given individual will one day commit a crime. Short of banning all foreign nationals from ever setting foot on U.S. soil, there is no way to reduce the risk to zero.

As with any other policy decision, the risks have to be balanced against the benefits. And there are benefits in allowing U.S. citizens to reunite with their family members, benefits in attracting workers with needed skills, benefits in diversifying the immigrant stream, and benefits in fulfilling a moral responsibility to welcome our fair share of those who fear for their lives.

Let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Stephen Legomsky is an emeritus law professor at Washington University, the former chief counsel of the federal immigration services agency, and the principal author of “Immigration and Refugee Law and Policy,” which has been the required text for immigration courses at 185 law schools.”

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

Go on over to The Hill at the link to read Steve’s complete article.

Thanks, Steve, for sending this my way and for these great and appropriate thoughts on MLK Day! It’s important for those of us who have spent a lifetime working in the field and have served the public in our Government to speak out against the various false narratives and perversions of programs that have served America well being pushed by the restrictionists who control this Administration’s immigration policies. Hate, fear, and loathing are not the answers that Dr. King was promoting!

PWS

01-15-18

THE HILL: NOLAN SUMMARIZES THE NEW HOUSE GOP IMMIGRATION BILL, H.R. 4760, SO YOU DON’T HAVE TO READ 414 PAGES!

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/368746-dont-bother-with-gop-daca-bill-trump-already-has-a-winning-plan

Nolan writes:

“. . . .

Republicans have introduced a DACA bill, the Securing America’s Future Act (H.R. 4760), but the ACLU may be right in describing it as a “collection of hard line provisions designed to sabotage, rather than advance, the possibility of a bipartisan breakthrough.”

Highlights from this 414-page bill:

Legal immigration

End the Diversity Visa Program

End chain migration

Reduce legal immigration levels by about 25 percent

Border security

Authorize President Trump’s wall

Hire 5,000 Border Patrol Agents and 5,000 CBP Officers

Expand the use of the National Guard

Establish an entry-exit system at all ports of entry.

Prevent future illegal immigration

Make E-Verify mandatory

Crack down on sanctuary cities

Enhance penalties for deported criminal aliens who return illegally

Make illegal presence a federal misdemeanor

Authorize quick return of unaccompanied alien minors apprehended at the border

DACA

Provide temporary legal status for the 790,000 DACA participants that would have to be renewed every three years.

. . . .

It is apparent that Trump’s approach to putting together a DACA fix is far more likely to succeed than the one proposed by House Republicans.”

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

Go on over to The Hill for Nolan’s complete, yet refreshingly succinct, analysis.

PWS

01-14-18

THE HILL: NOLAN SAYS THAT ANY DREAMER LEGISLATION MUST BE “FULLY VETTED!”

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/367744-democrats-out-of-order-on-dream-act?rnd=1515255525

Nolan writes (in part):

“. . . .

If the DREAM Act is passed without going through the checks and balances that are provided by regular order, it will represent little more than the partisan views of those who wrote it.

. . . .

It seems somewhat hypocritical for Schumer and Pelosi to be urging the passage of a DREAM Act without going through the regular order: They have expressed outrage in the past when the Republicans have resorted to such tactics.

For instance, when Republicans tried to rush the Graham-Cassidy healthcare bill through the Senate to repeal the Affordable Care Actwithout going through the regular order, Schumer made the following statement on the floor of the Senate:

There is no regular order here. There are no bipartisan, public hearings on the Graham-Cassidy bill. … [I]t’s the same backroom, one-party sham of a legislative process that ultimately brought the other bill down. A contrived, 11th hour hearing on block grants in the Homeland Security Committee — a committee with such limited jurisdiction over healthcare matters — does not even come close to suggesting regular order.

And when House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) abandoned the pledge he had made to return to regular order, Pelosi responded with an angry press statement claiming that, “It has long been clear that regular order is not as important to republicans as protecting their special interest agenda.”

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the DREAM Act would make legal status available to 3.4 million undocumented aliens and would increase national budget deficits by $25.9 billion over the 2018-2027 period.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 established the largest legalization program we have ever had, and it only legalized 2.7 million aliens.

The extreme generosity of the DREAM Act of 2017 is unfair to the American citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents who have unconscionably long waits to be reunited with alien family members. As of November 2017, there were 4 million aliens with approved family-based visa petitions on the visa waiting list.

. . . .

Congress needs to pass a bill to help alien children who were brought here illegally by their parents, but it should be a bill that has gone through the checks and balances of the legislative process.”

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

Go on over to The Hill at the link to get the full detail about Nolan’s objections to the current draft of the “Dream Act.”

The parallel between “Graham-Cassidy,” which was in fact a GOP backroom effort that totally excluded Dems from the process, and the Dream Act appears strained. Nonpartisan Dream Act negotiations are currently going on and have been for some time. Indeed, since the Dems are in the minority in both Houses, they will need some bipartisan GOP support to pass Dreamer relief. Moreover, unlike Graham-Cassidy, various versions of the Dream Act have been around and debated for years. Indeed, various bills at one time had majority support in both Houses, but GOP restrictionist maneuvering blocked them from becoming law.

The Dems had to face down some “rebellions’ from their base for going back on their word and voting to temporarily fund the USG over the Holidays. I don’t see how they can “kick the can” on the Dreamers down the road any more without some serious backlash from their own base. That’s particularly true now that the unnecessary and unwise termination of TPS for El Salvador has sowed yet more fear and unease in the immigrant and Hispanic communities.

As I’ve pointed out before, because of the “Bakuninist Wing” of the GOP, Trump isn’t going to get any type of budget without some Democratic support. Once he gets a budget, that need for “bipartisanship” might well disappear overnight. So, now is the time for the Dems to use their “leverage.”

As other commentators have noted, at one time additional border fencing was basically a “nonpartisan no-brainer.” But, by turning “The Wall” into a White Nationalist racist anti-Hispanic symbol, Trump basically has “poisoned the well” for the Democrats. Nevertheless, there might be room for some additional fencing that the Dems could characterize as “less than The Wall” while Trump could claim victory to his base. The Dems also could give on border equipment and technology as well as more administrative and legal personnel for DHS. Beyond that, the pickings are slim.

But, the GOP leaders and Trump don’t have lots of options either. They will be hard pressed to come up with a budget that satisfies Trump while still gaining sufficient support from the Bakuninists. Then, there is the problem that the budget apparently will require 60 votes in the Senate. That means that the GOP has to do at least something akin to a bipartisan deal. I’ve certainly been wrong before, but I don’t see Nolan’s idea as something the Dems can buy at this time.

I have no problem with also giving relief to family members waiting in line to immigrate. It’s not a “zero sum game” as the restrictions try to portray it. We could clearly take in more legal immigrants now and in the future; clearly we should have been doing so in the past, in which case we wouldn’t have approximately 10 million productive residents living here without legal status. But, that probably will have to await some type of overall Immigration Reform that’s unlikely to be accomplished as long as guys like Jeff Sessions, Steven Miller, and Sen. Tom Cotton are “driving the train” for the GOP on immigration.

So, stay tuned, we’ll see how this all plays out.

PWS 01-08-18

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: