U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced last week that it was launching a “Citizens Academy” in Chicago. The move justifiably generated everything from confusion to anger and fear from elected officials and community members. The program is already the subject of recently introduced bills to ban funding for it.

ICE describes the program as a six-day training that will launch on September 15. The program is targeted toward stakeholders, including religious leaders, community-based organizations, and local, state, and federal public officials. ICE’s Enforcement & Removal Operations (ERO) unit will run the program. The ERO office is tasked with arresting, detaining, and deporting people from the United States.

The agency claims “participants will hear directly from ERO officers and learn about ICE policies and procedures.” The program will also afford ICE “the opportunity to hear from participants, understand their perspectives and debunk myths.” But the invitation letter addresses another component of  the program:

Those who attend will have the opportunity to “participate in scenario-based training and exercises conducted in a safe and positive environment,” which will include “defensive tactics, firearms familiarization, and targeted arrests.”

The public has good cause to reject what ICE has pitched as an effort at transparency and engagement.

ICE has not provided local communities around the country with reason to trust any public outreach initiatives by the agency. This is particularly true for sanctuary jurisdictions such as Chicago, which has declared itself a “Welcoming City.”

Many communities have been subjected to stepped-up immigration enforcement during the Trump administration.

They know firsthand that ICE can and will escalate its tactics to continue to arrest, detain and deport more and more people from the United States.

According to ICE, the program includes visiting a detention center and learning more about ICE’s health care system. Participants will also hear about ICE’s “role in ensuring dignity, respect and due process of an immigration case from start to finish.” Actions speak louder than words, however, and ICE’s past track record speaks for itself.

Advocates have long documented and sued over the abysmal medical care in ICE detention facilities, which has resulted in avoidable deaths.

ICE has a poor track record with ensuring “dignity, respect, and due process” too. In Chicago, where the pilot program take place, a lawsuit alleging that ICE violated the immigration statute and the Constitution has been allowed to proceed by a district court judge. The lawsuit alleges that ICE engaged in unlawful tactics during a week of enforcement operations in May 2018, which include racial profiling and forcing Latino residents to get fingerprinted.

 

16-Jul: ICE is creating armed civilian militias and training them to “detain immigrants” on America’s streets.

ICE’s six-week, invite-only “Citizens Academy” course includes training on “defensive tactics, firearms familiarization and targeted arrests.” https://t.co/UxfmMGqkmM

— Chad Loder (@chadloder) July 17, 2020

ICE’s promise to provide “scenario-based training” with firearms deepens the concern. The description is disturbing in its military overtones. It mirrors ICE’s Office of Training and Tactical Programs (OTTP) Firearms and Tactics Division, where ICE officers are trained at the U.S. military base in Fort Benning, Georgia.

The description of the “Citizens Academy” training has rightly prompted the Chicago mayor as well as members of Congress to denounce any effort to train community members to target friends and neighbors for immigration enforcement or to otherwise encourage vigilantism.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to imagine a scenario in which the public and targeted communities can trust ICE’s motives. But ICE’s “Citizen’s Academy” is certainly not a welcome move.

Source: ICE’s ‘Citizens Academy’ Has No Place in Communities That Welcome Immigrants

Download a PDF of this Backgrounder.

---

Steven A. Camarota is the director of research and Karen Zeigler is a demographer at the Center. Jason Richwine, PhD, is a public policy analyst based in Washington, D.C., and a contributing writer at National Review.

---

An analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies of public-use data released earlier this month by the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that while there was some improvement in the number and share of native-born Americans and immigrants (legal and illegal) out of work, unemployment remains extraordinarily high. The unemployment rate improved slightly more for immigrants than for the native-born between May and June, but native unemployment at 10.7 percent remains a good deal lower than the 13.8 percent for immigrants. Despite the recent improvement, the 18.1 million unemployed immigrants and natives in June is still nearly three times what it was in June last year. While workers of every education level have experienced significant job losses during the Covid-19 shutdown, the situation for workers without a college education is especially bleak. It remains extremely difficult to justify the continued entry of new immigrants on the grounds of any “labor shortage”.

Among the findings:

• The unemployment rate for native-born Americans (ages 16-plus) was 10.7 percent in June. While lower than the 12.4 percent in May, it is still almost three times what it was before Covid-19 hit. Among immigrants (ages 16-plus), the rate was 13.8 percent in June, compared to 15.8 percent in May. The immigrant rate is still nearly four times what it was before Covid-19. (Figure 1, Table 1B)
• The number of natives and immigrants unemployed declined by about 12 percent for both groups between May and June. Still, the number of natives and immigrants unemployed stood at 18.1 million, nearly three times what it was in February, before Covid-19 hit. (Figure 2, Table 1A)
• In addition to the unemployed, there were 45.7 million working-age (16-64) native-born and 9.4 million working-age immigrants entirely out of the labor force — neither working nor looking for work. This is still 1.7 million higher for the native-born and 800,000 higher for immigrants than it was in February. (Table 2A)
• We estimate the unemployment rate for legal immigrants in June was 13.3 percent, an improvement from the 15.6 percent in May. The rate for illegal immigrants was 15.1 percent, an improvement from 16.4 percent in May. (Our estimates by legal status are approximations only.) (Table 4B)

Among the less-educated:

• The unemployment rate for the native-born (ages 25-plus) without a bachelor’s degree was 10.8 percent in June, compared to 6.6 percent for those with at least a bachelor’s. Among immigrants (ages 25-plus), 16.3 percent without a bachelor’s degree were unemployed, compared to 8.9 percent with a bachelor’s. (Table 1B)
• The unemployment rate (combined immigrant and native-born) in many jobs typically performed by the less-educated has improved but remains high. (Table 3C)
  • 28.5 percent for food preparers and servers
  • 21.4 percent for maids and housekeepers
  • 20.1 percent for retail salespersons
  • 15 percent for construction laborers
  • 7.2 percent for health care aides and nursing assistants
• The Covid-19 shutdown has exacerbated the long-term decline in the labor force participation rate (share working or looking for work) of the less-educated. In June 2020, only 67 percent of working-age (16-64) natives without a bachelor’s degree were in the labor force, down from 72 percent in 2007 and 76 percent in 2000. (Figure 5)
• Focusing only on men who are of prime working age (25 to 54) still shows a long-term decline in labor force participation. The share of these native-born men without a bachelors in the labor force was 83 percent in June 2020, compared to 88 percent in June 2007 and 90 percent in June 2000. (Figure 6)

Data and Methods

This report uses the Current Population Survey (CPS) to examine the employment situation in the United States as of June 2020, with particular attention paid to differences between immigrants and natives. Based on a monthly survey of 60,000 households, the CPS is the nation’s primary source for the unemployment rate and other labor force statistics. The sample is weighted to reflect the actual size and demographic makeup of the civilian non-institutionalized population. The raw data used in this analysis comes directly from the Census Bureau, which collects the data for the Bureau of Labor Statistics.¹

Key Concepts and Terms. The labor force includes all workers, plus non-workers who have actively looked for work in the four weeks prior to the survey. The standard unemployment rate, referred to by the BLS as the U-3 rate, is calculated by dividing the number actively looking for work by the number in the labor force. The labor force participation rate is simply the share of people in the labor force.

Definition of Immigrant. The foreign-born in the CPS are all persons who were not U.S. citizens at birth. They include naturalized citizens, permanent residents (green card holders), temporary visitors, guestworkers, and illegal aliens. We use the term “immigrant” to encompass all of these foreign-born individuals. In Tables 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B we report figures separately for non-citizens and naturalized citizens. Tables 4A, 4B, 5A, and 5B report figures for legal immigrants and illegal immigrants separately.

Identifying Illegal Immigrants. Prior research indicates that most illegal immigrants are included in Census data. To determine which respondents are most likely to be illegal aliens, CIS first excludes immigrant respondents who are almost certainly not illegal aliens — for example, spouses of native-born citizens; veterans; people who have government jobs; Cubans (because of special rules for that country); immigrants who arrived before 1980 (because the 1986 amnesty should have already covered them); people in certain occupations requiring licensing, screening, or a government background check (e.g., doctors, pharmacists, and law enforcement); and people likely to be on student visas.

The remaining candidates are weighted to replicate known characteristics of the illegal population (population size, age, gender, region or country of origin, state of residence, and length of residence in the United States). CIS has previously used the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as the source of those known characteristics; however, DHS data were last published in 2015. For more recent data, we turn to 2018 estimates from the Center for Migration Studies (CMS), including their estimates of educational attainment.² The resulting illegal population, which consists of a weighted set of CPS respondents, is designed to match CMS on the characteristics listed above. However, we do not adjust the number of illegal immigrants for undercount in the CPS.³ Estimates for legal immigrants are calculated simply by subtracting estimated counts of illegal immigrants from the total immigrant population.

All of our findings that separate immigrants by legal status should be considered rough approximations only. Because we do not have information about the illegal immigrant population in 2020, we are forced to take the known characteristics of illegal aliens from 2018 and apply them to the new labor market data in 2020. The primary weakness of this approach is that it assumes the illegal immigrant population still has the same demographic profile (population size, age, gender, etc.) as it did in 2018.

Matching Published BLS Tables. In this report, all statistics covering the entire population, such as the headline unemployment rate, match those published by the BLS. However, the counts and percentages for sub-populations will in some cases be slightly different. The reason is that the Census Bureau adds “perturbations” to the public-use microdata to protect respondent confidentiality. Fortunately, the Census Bureau states that any differences between published figures and those calculated from the public-use data will be so small that they “fall well within the sampling variability associated with CPS estimates”.⁴ In other words, there should be no meaningful difference between statistics calculated from the pubic-use data and those published by the BLS.

Finally, the figures in this report are not seasonally adjusted. Unadjusted figures are conceptually simpler and easier for other researchers to replicate.⁵ Also, the limited number of statistics on the foreign-born published in the BLS monthly “Employment Situation” reports are also not seasonally adjusted.

Potential Problems with the Data. The BLS reports a potential problem with the CPS for March, April, May, and June.⁶ First, the response rates in all these months were significantly lower than prior months. This increased the sampling error of the surveys for these months. However, “BLS was still able to obtain estimates that met our standards for accuracy and reliability,” according to statement from the bureau. Second, interviewers who administered the survey miscoded some respondents as employed when they were on furlough temporarily laid off, or in similar situations. They should have been considered temporarily laid off and coded as unemployed. The number unemployed and the unemployment rate would be higher in March through June if these individuals were counted as unemployed. Neither the Census Bureau, which collects the data, nor the BLS has altered the data in response to these issues. Our analysis takes the raw CPS data as provided; and our results match published non-seasonally adjusted figures, with the caveats about perturbations in public use data discussed above.

 

---

End Notes

¹ “Basic Monthly CPS”, U.S. Census Bureau, undated.

² “State-Level Unauthorized Population and Eligible-to-Naturalize Estimates”, Center for Migration Studies, undated.

³ In 2018, CMS estimated a total illegal immigrant population of 10.6 million, which includes an undercount adjustment for those missed in Census Bureau data. Our analysis of the CPS totals to 9.8 million illegal immigrants, reflecting a 7.5 percent undercount.

⁴ “Monthly Current Population Survey Public Use Microdata Files”, U.S. Census Bureau, undated.

⁵ “Table A-7. Employment status of the civilian population by nativity and sex, not seasonally adjusted”, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, July 2, 2020.

⁶ For a brief discussion of the problems with the CPS beginning in March, see the section entitled, “Coronavirus (COVID-19) Impact on June 2020 Establishment and Household Survey Data” at the bottom of the June Employment Situation press release. For a more detailed look at the issues see the statement issued by BLS on the matter for June.

Source: The Employment Situation of Immigrants and Natives in June 2020

The US Attorney for the District of Oregon Friday called for an investigation into allegations that unidentified federal agents are arresting people in the city of Portland.

US Attorney Billy Williams noted that federal agents have been in the city for the past fifty nights, defending the federal courthouse and other federal buildings from protestors.

Williams had already called for an investigation earlier this week after a protestor was shot in the head with an impact munition fired by an officer of the US Marshals Service. That investigation has been turned over to the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General.

While defense of the buildings was lawful, Williams said reports had reached him of federal agents, including agents from Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), driving in unmarked vehicles and arresting at least two protestors without identifying themselves. The agents were not wearing any identifying insignia and were masked.

Williams referred to these arrests as “questionable conduct,” while Lisa Hay, Oregon’s federal public defender, said, “It’s a fundamental constitutional value that people in this country are free to walk the streets without fear of secret arrest. That circumstance raises concerns that the arrests occurred without probable cause.”

 

Later on Friday, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum announced that the state would file charges in federal court against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the U.S. Marshals Service, the Federal Protection Service, and CBP.

The lawsuit will allege that the agencies and their agents have violated the civil rights of Oregonians by arresting and holding them without probable cause.

In a statement, Rosenblum accused the Trump administration of using “scare tactics to stop our residents from protesting police brutality and from supporting the Black Lives Matter movement. Every American should be repulsed when they see this happening. If this can happen here in Portland, it can happen anywhere.”

Also on Friday, Oregon Senators Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden, and Representatives Earl Blumenauer and Suzanne Bonamici, issued a joint statement in which they wrote the administration’s actions “are chillingly reminiscent of autocratic governments that “disappear” critics and opponents.”

They demanded the removal of all federal agents who have been recently deployed to Portland. Oregon Governor Kate Brown also tweeted that she had told DHS Acting Secretary Chad Wolf to “remove all federal officers from our streets,” but that “[h]is response showed me he is on a mission to provoke confrontation for political purposes.”

 

I told Acting Secretary Wolf that the federal government should remove all federal officers from our streets. His response showed me he is on a mission to provoke confrontation for political purposes. He is putting both Oregonians and local law enforcement officers in harm’s way.

— Governor Kate Brown (@OregonGovBrown) July 16, 2020

Wolf had said that removal of agents from Portland would not “happen on my watch.”

 

“I offered @DHSgov support to help locally address the situation that’s going on in Portland, and their only response was: please pack up and go home. That’s just not going to happen on my watch.” pic.twitter.com/BW8UdbNZ9c

— Acting Secretary Chad Wolf (@DHS_Wolf) July 17, 2020

 

Additionally, The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Oregon today sued the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Marshals Service, which have deployed federal agents to Portland, Oregon.

These agents, which have been deployed over the widespread objections of local leaders and community members, have been indiscriminately using tear gas, rubber bullets, and acoustic weapons against protesters, journalists, and legal observers. Federal officers also shot a protester in the head Sunday with a rubber bullet fracturing the person’s face and skull.

Though CBP frequently uses drones to conduct border surveillance, the Minneapolis incident appeared to be the first time that they had done so in response to domestic protests.

Budd believes the DHS has undergone a “mission creep” phenomenon, wherein its mission and authorities have gradually expanded over time—a process carried out cumulatively over the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations.

“‘Mission creep’ is what CBP, Border Patrol, and ICE have been engaged in since 9/11,” Budd said. “There are all sorts of interesting powers that CBP, ICE and Border Patrol have under Title 42 pandemic law, which has been triggered with Trump’s Covid-19 national emergency declaration.

Even though he claims we should not be in pandemic lockdown, he refuses to lift the emergency declaration because this gives these agencies more authority. All of this is legal because of vague and broad authorities given to these agencies after 9/11.”

Source: Investigations and lawsuits launched after federal agents detain Portland protesters

This afternoon, a federal judge in Maryland quietly handed down a victory for new DACA applicants. The judge in the case, Casa de Maryland v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, has ordered the government to restore the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program to its pre-September 2017 status, meaning that first-time applicants can now apply for Deferred Action and an employment authorization document from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.

---

What was this lawsuit about?

The Casa de Maryland v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security lawsuit was brought on October 5, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, to challenge the Trump administration’s revocation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The plaintiffs were a group of nonprofit organizations and DACA recipients who sought to enjoin (stop) the federal government from terminating the DACA program. The plaintiffs argued that the Trump administration’s 2017 rescission of the program was motivated by discriminatory animus toward individuals from Mexico and Central America. They also argued that revoking DACA violated Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

In response to the lawsuit, the government filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On March 5, 2018, the judge ordered the government to stop using or sharing information provided by DACA applicants for enforcement or deportation purposes, but declared that the Trump administration’s rescission of the DACA program was valid and constitutional.

On April 27, 2018, the plaintiff’s appealed the case to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court reversed the district court’s decision finding that the rescission of DACA was invalid and unconstitutional. The court decided that the government’s rescission of DACA was arbitrary and capricious and remanded the case back to the lower courts.

Today, on remand in accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 18, 2020 decision holding that rescission of DACA was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA, the judge’s decision “restores DACA to its pre-September 5, 2017, status…”

---

How does this decision affect the status of DACA? Can I apply for Advance Parole?

The decision restores the original 2012 DACA program in its entirety. This means that those eligible to renew their DACA can continue to do so. Also, USCIS should begin to accept applications from individuals applying for DACA for the first time, though USCIS has not yet released information or guidance on the process to do so. Advance parole, which allows DACA recipients to travel abroad with permission, should also become available again. However, it is important to note that the court order makes no mention of advance parole. Therefore, it does not explicitly mandate USCIS to accept applications for advance parole. In addition, in certain situations it may not be advisable for a DACA applicant to apply for advance parole. Individuals who believe they may qualify for first time DACA or advance parole should speak to an attorney or accredited representative to understand whether they are eligible.

---

Can I apply for DACA for the first time?

Yes. The ruling explicitly requires the government to reinstate the program to its pre-September 5, 2017 status meaning that it must accept first time applications for DACA. At this time USCIS has not issued guidance or updated their website to reflect this information. Thus, it remains unclear how USCIS will process initial applications.

First time applicants who are interested in applying should consult an attorney or accredited representative to get an individualized assessment on their DACA eligibility and any potential risks before applying. If USCIS does not accept initial applications despite today’s ruling, legal action may be brought to make USCIS comply with the court’s decision.

---

Will DACA Be Terminated in the Future?

The Trump administration will likely continue its efforts to terminate DACA given that the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in their opinion that although the government violated the APA when it rescinded DACA in 2017, that it could rescind DACA if it had complied with the law in doing so. The President is well aware that he has the power to do so, if he goes through the appropriate avenues. However, rescinding DACA would take time. As you know, time is not on the President’s side as we get closer to the last year of his presidential term.

---

What are the Requirements to Apply for DACA for the First Time?

Generally, individuals who can show they meet the following guidelines may be eligible to apply for DACA:

• Were born on June 15, 1981 or after (or have been no older than 30 on June 15, 2012);
• Came to the United States before their 16th birthday;
• Have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007;
• Were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012 (the date when DACA was announced);
• Had no lawful status on June 15, 2012;
• Are currently a student (including high school, community college, university, or adult school), have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a GED certificate, or served in the Coast Guard or Armed Forces; and
• Have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

---

What Information and Evidence Are Needed to Submit an Initial DACA Application?

An applicant for initial DACA application must provide extensive evidence to show he or she meets all the requirements of the program. Applicants will need to submit evidence that proves their age, identity, their physical presence, and their fulfillment of the education requirement. In addition, individuals will need to complete an application which asks for physical addresses, educational information, and criminal history.

Detailed information about the examples of documents you can provide to demonstrate that you meet the guidelines is available on the USCIS DACA webpage and the Form I-821D Instructions.

---

Need Perm Ads? If you would like to schedule a consultation please contact us

---

Helpful Links

• DACA Supreme Court Decision June 2020
• Casa de Maryland Decision
• Request DACA for the First Time
• Form I-821D
• USCIS DACA FAQs

Source: BREAKING NEWS: Federal Judge Hands Victory to First Time DACA Applicants

Photo of girl: by Roi Dimor on Unsplash

Tables 1 through 5 show the number of petitions that the government has approved for individual employers to sponsor workers for visas or status, the share of workers who fit into those categories who are outside the United States (and subject to the ban), the number of employers who received labor certification or labor condition application approvals from the Department of Labor (DOL) allowing them to petition for workers, and the number of employers who received approved petitions from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The years reflect the most recent data publicly available.

The employment-based second and third preference categories saw 924 employers receive labor certification approvals for workers abroad (Table 3), and 776 of them were eligible to petition for their employees to receive immigrant visas to travel here. The L-1 category data are older but show 7,020 employers in 2018 receiving approvals for initial L-1 petitions (Table 4). Almost 100 percent of L‐​1s are abroad because the program exists to allow multinationals to transfer foreign employees to U.S. job sites. The J-1 Summer Work and Travel Program is even older—from 2015—but the size of the program has been similar in recent years. In 2015, nearly 16,000 employers hired J‐​1s under the Summer Work and Travel Program (Table 5). Nearly all hires appear to have occurred abroad, but no public data on the share is available.

Using the employment data from the most recent years shows about 55,000 unique employers across all these programs. Assuming that the share of hires abroad reflects the share of employers who exclusively hiring workers abroad, a little more than 6 months would normally see a little less than 20,000 distinct employers submit petitions, sponsor, or hire for foreign workers in these categories.

The United States government is harming its own industries, making the country less competitive and attractive for businesses that employ millions of Americans.

Source: About 20,000 U.S. Employers Are Affected by Trump’s Travel Bans This Year

First, we lose the kind of personal drive that built this country: the life force of brilliant young people with the courage and ambition to leave everything familiar in search of a better future. What’s more, most students who come here to earn a Ph.D. stay to build their families and careers, and often companies that create thousands of jobs. Many become citizens.

The latest data shows, for example, that 83 percent of Ph.D. students from China, the kind of highly trained scientists and engineers who drive American innovation, were still in the United States five years after completing their degrees.

MIT and Harvard Sue Trump Over F-1 Visa International Students | NowThis

 

The percentage would be higher if longstanding U.S. policies did not require many students to return home after finishing their education — a system as counterproductive as training a great player and then insisting that she go play for a rival team. Recently, the percentage of doctoral graduates remaining here has begun to decline, in part because our national message is that they are not welcome.

As some in Washington have sought to limit foreign students, especially those from China, that hostile message has grown louder.

Of course the United States must screen students seeking visas and keep out those with dubious backgrounds. But even the fiercest China hawks acknowledge that when foreign interests engage in espionage or intellectual theft, they seek to recruit senior scientists; only a small number of Chinese students have been implicated in such cases. The vast majority we should welcome, not discourage with the blunt hostility apparent in recent policies.

I believe profoundly that we must increase the number of Americans pursuing training in science and engineering. But we must also understand that America’s strength in science and engineering is central to America’s strength, period — and that a core element of that strength, for decades, has been our ability to lure the world’s finest talent.

This country derives many intangible advantages from being a beacon of hope for people around the world; I first came to America in 1974 from Venezuela, where my parents finally settled as refugees from Hitler’s Europe. I came to improve my own prospects through a graduate degree. But I found a culture of openness, boldness, ingenuity and meritocracy — a culture which taught me that in coming to America, I had truly come home.

The following letter was sent to the MIT community today by President L. Rafael Reif.

To the members of the MIT community,

I am delighted to join you in taking pleasure in the news that the federal government just rescinded the July 6th policy from Immigration and Customs Enforcement that would have prohibited many international students from studying in the United States if – as was likely at many institutions, in response to the pandemic – their classes would be fully online. For our international students, and thus for all of us, this comes as an enormous relief.

Since we joined Harvard in pressing a lawsuit against the original directive last week, I have been inspired by the outpouring of support and action from higher education and other organizations, including dozens of U.S. states. I was especially moved by the involvement of our own students, including those who contributed their personal stories to the legal effort and those who organized a national coalition of students in filing a brief. You show us what it means to be One MIT.

 

“The larger battle is far from over. This misguided policy was one of many signals that the administration wants foreign students to stay away,” MIT President L. Rafael Reif in the @NYTimes. https://t.co/ClLxeYahrn

— Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) (@MIT) July 15, 2020

I am also immensely grateful to Harvard University President Larry Bacow ’72 for his leadership, and to all the colleges and universities who signed court briefs in support of our suit.

My great respect and gratitude also go to Vice President and General Counsel Mark DiVincenzo and his Office of General Counsel colleagues Dahlia Fetouh and Anthony Moriello, who worked around the clock to make such a powerful case, and to all the staff who helped our international students handle this long week of painful uncertainty. And my thanks to everyone who reached out to help or spoke up in support of our students.

It’s deeply encouraging that this case has inspired so much reflection about and enthusiastic recognition of the vital role international students play in academic communities across the United States – and absolutely at MIT.

This case also made clear that real lives are at stake in these “bureaucratic” matters, with the potential for real harm. We need to approach policy making, especially now, with more humanity, more decency – not less.

When we joined this suit with Harvard, we knew our case was strong, and we are pleased with this outcome. But we also stand ready to protect our students from any further arbitrary policies.

With gratitude and appreciation,

L. Rafael Reif

 

Source: I’m the President of M.I.T. America Needs Foreign Students.

http://news.mit.edu/2020/government-rescinds-international-student-0714

Photo: http://news.mit.edu/2019/president-l-rafael-reifs-charge-0607

The Trump administration’s full-on assault on the U.S. immigration system has continued despite the COVID-19 pandemic. The president has not only pursued his agenda during the outbreak—he has, in several instances, used the pandemic as a pretext to reduce the number of noncitizens who can come to the United States lawfully. Many recent policy changes have targeted people abroad, disqualifying them from coming to the country in the first place.

But the administration is now targeting people who are in the United States lawfully—in some cases for many years—by doing things like scaling back the printing of green cards and employment authorization documents (or work permits). These are critical documents that immigrants need to take part in many aspects of American life. Without them, people can’t work, obtain loans, or prove they are in the country lawfully.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) recently cut production of these documents after its contract ended with a third-party printing company. Reports indicate that 50,000 green cards and 75,000 work permits have not been printed. The agency said it planned to manage the production of these documents in-house, but that its ability to do so is limited due to budgetary constraints.

The people impacted by these printing delays have already had their petitions and applications approved by USCIS. They have paid the often-exorbitant filing fees, completed the necessary paperwork, and gone through extensive background checks. Despite this, the agency says it “cannot speculate on future projections of processing times.”

This leaves hundreds of thousands of people without the documents needed to support themselves. These documents are important in normal times—but are even more critical during a worldwide pandemic.

The administration claims that its reduction in printing capacity is due to a USCIS budget shortfall that it has blamed on a reduction in fee revenue during the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, that isn’t the whole story. While COVID-19 has had a significant impact across our immigration system, USCIS has been on a path to financial ruin for years due largely to its own fiscal mismanagement.

The agency has significantly increased its personnel costs during a period of several years when it has received far fewer applications and petitions. At the same time, it reduced its own bottom line by instituting a series of policy changes that disqualified many noncitizens from qualifying for certain benefits. This includes the public charge rule and its recent expanded ban on many forms of legal immigration.

This has all contributed to a massive $1.2 billion dollar shortfall within the agency. The delayed printing of green cards and employment authorization documents foreshadows even greater challenges in the near future.

USICS plans to furlough over 13,000 employees as of August 3 at a time when its own data confirms that the agency has a backlog of over 5.7 million pending cases. While the agency has asked Congress for emergency funding, the White House has yet to submit a formal request. It is unclear if Congress will be able to step in before the long August recess.

If USCIS moves forward with these furloughs, productivity will plummet even further. Millions of cases will be left in limbo until the agency is able to fully resume operations. This includes the applications from hundreds of thousands of Dreamers impacted by the Supreme Court’s recent DACA decision.

Congress should step in to provide enough funding to allow the agency to continue its operations. But Congress also must also exercise its constitutional oversight authority to create and boost meaningful accountability, transparency, and productivity within USCIS. Congress also has an important role to challenge the administration’s ongoing efforts to use COVID-19 as a pretext to justify many of the changes to our immigration system that it has sought for years.

Source: USCIS Upends the Lives of Immigrants by Refusing to Print Their Work Permits and Green Cards