Category: Department of Homeland Security


Make America Great For Immigrants Again

July 27th, 2017 — 1:32pm

For decades, immigrants across the globe have come to the United States with the goal of building a better life. The promise of new opportunities — and even the ability to start their own companies — is a large driving factor for many immigrants coming to the U.S., and has made a difference in the country’s economic health. Yet, in recent years, perceptions of what it means to be an immigrant in the United States have changed, which could lead to detrimental effects on the economy.

A recent study by U.S. News & World Report ranked the “Best Countries for Immigrants,” where more than 21,000 respondents from all over the world assessed 80 countries based on characteristics including being “economically stable,” having a “good job market” and “income equality,” and “is a place I would live” overall. U.S. News also took factors like integration for immigrants — including language training and job certification transfers — remittances migrants sent home and the overall number of migrants in their overall population.

Sweden took first place in the rankings, followed by Canada, Switzerland, Australia and Germany finishing out the top five. The U.S. ranked at No. 7, following Norway.

It’s understandable that amplified rhetoric against immigration throughout the 2016 U.S. presidential election likely helped contribute to respondents’ current perceptions of the country in terms of being a place they would live. Adding to this, U.S. immigration policy continues to change under the Trump administration, with talk of cutting annual immigration by half, express deportations for convicted foreign nationals and, of course, the border wall.

To help improve views of the U.S. for potential immigrants — and their quality of life should they plan to immigrate — organizations across the country are working on ways to aid immigrants and help attempt to change policy. One such organization, the Niskanen Center, is developing a series policy briefs focusing on immigration reform for key issues, including visa overstays, H-1B visa reform, entrepreneurial visa reform and more.

Researchers noted that the process of developing “Best Countries for Immigrants” list showed that many view immigration as the most important issue facing our world — and rightfully so. Reductions in the flow of immigrants generally do not improve the economy. Quite the opposite, immigrant populations make up a large portion of the U.S. workforce, and make up 18 percent of U.S. business ownership as of 2016.

The U.S. is at its greatest when it gives immigrants a seat at the table. But to keep our potential immigrant population from choosing a different home base, the next few years will require hard work to push for immigration reform that allows these opportunities for economic growth to be met.

 

 

Comment » | Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement

The Travel Ban on Refugees vs. International Law

June 26th, 2017 — 9:36am

Having set the rhetorical bar high during his campaign, President Trump has taken several steps attempting to make good on his promise to restrict immigration. Arguably, the most controversial of those – “The Wall” notwithstanding – is his executive order to ban U.S. entry to travelers, including refugees, from six Muslim-majority nations: Yemen, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Iran and Libya.

The ban for travelers would be in effect for 90 days – 120 days for refugees – while the government reviews possible improvements in vetting procedures. Immigrants from these six counties working in the U.S. under H-1B visas need not worry about deportation — or the travel ban — though immigration lawyers advise against leaving the country until the conditions of the ban are changed or lifted entirely.

Since announcing the order, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals invoked a freeze on the ban – deeming it discriminatory – and the decision was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court. Now, the Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow the ban to go into effect.

While this life-and-death refugee drama continues to play out domestically, the proposed ban may well face another problematic challenge: it appears to violate several international treaties ratified by the United States. Following the massive displacement of populations as the result of World War II, the Refugee Convention of 1951 was ratified by 145 State parties, defining the term “refugee” as well as the legal obligations of States to protect them.

Further, the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, an update to the Refugee Convention, prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, religion or national origin. Some of the provisions of these agreements have even been incorporated into U.S. law and cited as binding by the United States Supreme Court.

Steffen Seibert, spokesperson for German Chancellor Angela Merkel, said in a statement, “The Geneva Refugee Convention requires the international community to take in war refugees on humanitarian grounds. All signatory states are obligated to do (so)…She (Merkel) is convinced that the necessary, decisive battle against terrorism does not justify a general suspicion against people of a certain origin or a certain religion.”

Meanwhile, ironically, the executive order cannot displace domestic legal obligations. So those who do manage to reach U.S. soil claiming asylum will have to have their claims examined. The duty not to return a person to a state where they may face torture or other serious harm is absolute under the UN’s Convention Against Torture – which the United States has signed and ratified.

Of course, the question of whether the ban violates international law will only come into play should the Supreme Court decide in favor of the administration. Then, if Trump forges ahead, will the international community attempt to “punish” the U.S. or, if unwilling to do so, will they make plans to increase their own refugee resettlement programs?

Only time will tell.

Comment » | Department of Homeland Security

USCIS Announces Suspension of H-1B Premium Processing

March 5th, 2017 — 11:24am

What Happened?

On March 3, USCIS unexpectedly announced the temporary suspension of premium processing service for all H-1B petitions filed on or after April 3, 2017. Premium processing is a USCIS program that provides for a 15 day initial review in exchange for a $1,225 filing fee. USCIS has indicated that this premium processing suspension may last for up to six months.

The temporary suspension applies to all H-1B petitions filed on or after April 3, 2017. This includes extension and amendment petitions. Further, since new cap-subject H-1B petitions cannot be filed before April 3, 2017, this suspension will apply to all petitions filed under the fiscal year 2018 H-1B regular and master’s degree caps. The suspension also applies to petitions that may be cap-exempt, such as those filed by universities and other cap-exempt employers.

USCIS will continue to premium process H-1B petitions if the premium processing request was properly filed before April 3, 2017. Other types of petitions eligible for premium processing may continue to utilize the expedited service.

Why Did USCIS Make This Surprise Announcement?

According to USCIS, this suspension of premium processing is being implemented in order to help reduce overall H-1B processing times, which are currently running close to a full year in some instances. USCIS claims that by suspending premium processing, they will be able to focus on processing long-pending petitions that have gone unprocessed because of the large numbers of premium processing requests in the last few years. USCIS will also prioritize processing of H-1B extension petitions that are nearing 240 days pending, since the automatic extension of employment authorization only lasts for 240 days after the prior petition expiration.

Are There Any Exceptions?

During the premium processing suspension, petitioners may still request expedited processing if they meet certain criteria. USCIS reviews expedite requests on a case-by-case basis and requests are granted at their discretion. USCIS may expedite a petition or application if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

  • Severe financial loss to company or person;
  • Emergency situation;
  • Humanitarian reasons;
  • Nonprofit organization whose request is in furtherance of the cultural and social interests of the United States;
  • Department of Defense or national interest situation (These particular expedite requests must come from an official U.S. government entity and state that delay will be detrimental to the government.);
  • USCIS error; or
  • Compelling interest of USCIS.

In our experience, expedite requests are rarely granted.

What Is The Practical Impact For Companies and H-1B Employees Who Need Extensions in 2017?

Many H-1B employers routinely utilize premium processing service, in part because USCIS processing times have become so unreasonably long, and H-1B extensions can be filed no more than six months prior to expiration. Lengthy H-1B processing times during the unavailability of premium processing will present the following significant challenges:

  • Many H-1B employees will lose the ability to travel for business or pleasure because they will be unable to obtain a new visa to reenter the U.S. without an extension approval notice;
  • H-1B employees and their H-4 spouses may be unable to renew driver’s licenses;
  • H-1B employees seeking to change employers will either have to resign their current position and “port” to the new employer using the filing fee receipt from the new employer’s H-1B petition (without the certainty of an approved petition) or wait many months for the new employer’s petition to be approved.

Zulkie Partners will be working closely with clients to minimize the disruption caused by the sudden policy shift at USCIS.

Comment » | Department of Homeland Security, H-1B

Cities and States Respond to Trump’s Immigration Plan

December 22nd, 2016 — 4:57pm

Throughout his presidential campaign, Donald Trump spoke on a platform of intensive immigration reform. His proposed immigration plan includes ending President Obama’s executive actions, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). He is also proposing biometric visa tracking systems in all land, air and sea ports, and, of course, the wall.

Trump stated he’d cut federal funding to sanctuary cities in his first 100 days in office. In these cities — at least 130 of them, according to the Immigrant Legal Resource Center — local law enforcement agencies limit their interaction with federal immigration enforcement agents. Since his statement, officials from at least 37 of these cities said they would remain sanctuary cities for immigrant populations.

 Sanctuary cities across the country are stepping up protections for their undocumented immigrant residents. A $1 million legal defense fund was recently created in Chicago for immigrants facing deportation. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel doubled down, saying that Chicago is, and will remain, a sanctuary city.

At the state level, lawmakers are working toward creating more laws to help their immigrant populations. In California, lawmakers are developing a bill that would create “safe zones” at public schools, hospitals and courthouses. The state is also considering creating a fund that would pay for legal counsel for immigrants facing deportation.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio vowed to protect the more than 500,000 undocumented immigrants registered in a municipal database. He stated that if the Trump administration requests data that may result in a NYC resident’s deportation, he would delete the database information.

Although the threat of cutting federal funding to these cities is ever present, some experts argue that defunding alone may not be realistically implemented. Phil Torrey, a Harvard Law School lecturer and supervising attorney of the Harvard Immigration Project, explained, “What the federal government can’t do at this point is basically pull funding wholesale from states and localities in order to get their local law enforcement agents to basically enforce federal immigration law.”

Torrey also explained that although the Department of Justice sets aside grants for these cities, the money lost would pale in comparison to the full amount federal funding they may receive.

Trump’s rhetoric may convey that the U.S. is shifting away from welcoming immigrants, but the sanctuary cities across the country are sending the opposite message. Whether the Trump administration will back down on this plan remains to be seen, but immigrants and activists continue to work toward more protections for their residents.

Comment » | Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement

What Would Trump’s Immigration Plan Really Cost the U.S.?

March 30th, 2016 — 3:57pm

In the 2016 presidential race, the people of the United States are witnessing campaigns and talking points, along with the sheer number of candidates, like no other race in recent history. GOP frontrunner Donald Trump most often makes headlines for his language, especially toward immigrants, and his support for violence against those who disagree with him.

One of Trump’s most controversial plans involves sending all undocumented immigrants back to their home countries and building a wall on the U.S-Mexico border. Many of Trump’s devotees are just as supportive of the plan as he is.

 Nearly 11 million undocumented immigrants currently live in the U.S., making up 5.1 percent of the labor force as of 2012. In a Trump administration, they might be rounded up and sent “home,” leaving thousands of jobs open. This does not mean a sudden surge of jobs for native-born American workers — rather, Americans may see fewer jobs and no raises. The service industry as we know it would collapse, as an estimated 35 percent of service industry jobs are made up of undocumented workers, according to Pew Research analyses based on Census data.

The actual process of deporting all 11 million or so undocumented immigrants is a costly plan, besides the blow the economy would take with the open jobs. In the two year timeframe that Trump is proposing, the overall cost would add up to at least $400 billion dollars, along with reducing the U.S. GDP by $1 trillion. Why such a high cost? The process of detaining undocumented immigrants, trying them in court and transporting them to their home countries is not built for a mass deportation; the number of federal agents would need to increase to 90,000, much higher than our current 4,000 agents. Detention facilities would require an increase in beds from 34,000 to nearly 348,831 beds, with 1,300 new courts needed to try all the individuals facing deportation. This, in turn, would require 30,000 more attorneys. The actual deportation itself would require about 87 buses and 47 chartered flights to be sent out every day for two years.

In addition to all the combined setbacks of a mass deportation, one of Trump’s biggest plans — building a wall between Mexico and the U.S. — would only add more to the financial burden the U.S. is facing. Although Trump and his supporters are adamant about making a border wall paid for by Mexico a reality, Mexican Treasury Secretary Luis Videgaray said, “Mexico will under no circumstance pay for the wall Mr. Trump is proposing.” The cost for the wall alone, based on the cost of highway panels, is about $10 billion — not including other factors like surveillance, labor, equipment, and security.

Trump’s plan to “make America great again” fails to acknowledge that much of the greatness that we know today can be credited to immigrants, both documented and undocumented. We’ve seen just fractions of the costs of Trump’s immigration plan, and his plans to cut off federal grants to sanctuary cities and triple the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers only adds to the underlying economic problems the U.S. faces. What’s more, Trump is calling for a moratorium on green cards for foreign work, and could likely make the already complicated and drawn out process of legal immigration even more difficult.

Even so, immigrants, Mexican or otherwise, will not stop coming to the United States. Turning them away or ramping up security will help neither our economy nor those looking to live in the U.S. Under a Donald Trump presidency, the strides taken toward comprehensive immigration reform will likely be in vain, which we must keep in mind when voting in November. We know the positive impacts immigrants make on the U.S. economy through their entrepreneurship. Deporting undocumented immigrants and putting a hold on H1-B visas will not help the country continue to grow; comprehensive immigration reform will allow us to see America and its people become even greater.

Comment » | Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Immigration Policy Center, Immigration reform

Back to top