PERM Ads Immigration Advertising

Labor Certification Recruitment Ad Agency

PERM Labor Certification Advertising

Civil rights leader and congressman John Lewis dies at 80

by

US Representative John Lewis passed away late Friday from pancreatic cancer. He was 80 years old.

He was born in Alabama in 1940, the son of sharecroppers. As a student at Fisk University in Tennessee, he organized sit-ins at segregated lunch counters. He was one of the original thirteen Freedom Riders, Black and white activists who challenged segregation at interstate bus terminals throughout the American South. He was chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), which organized student activism as part of the civil rights movement. At the age of 23 he was one of the keynote speakers at the March on Washington in 1963, where he told the crowd, “We must say: ‘Wake up, America. Wake up!’ For we cannot stop, and we will not and cannot be patient.”

In March of 1965 he helped coordinate and lead a march of peaceful protestors across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, as part of a voting rights demonstration. The marchers were brutally attacked by state troopers, during which Lewis’ skull was cracked by a trooper wielding a billy club. The demonstration came to be known as Bloody Sunday, and news reports of the attack led to Congress and President Lyndon Johnson passing the Voting Rights Act later that year.

Lewis ran for Congress in 1986 and was elected to represent Georgia’s Fifth District, which encompasses much of Atlanta.

His tenure continued to be marked by the activism and protest of his early years, including being arrested several times while participating in protests in Washington D.C. He was inspired by the scope of the recent protests that blossomed across the nation in the wake of the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officers in May. He said in an interview in June, “It was very moving, very moving to see hundreds of thousands of people from all over America and around the world take to the streets — to speak up, to speak out, to get into what I call ‘good trouble’.”

He received numerous awards for his work, including the United States’ highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, awarded by Barack Obama in 2011. President Obama said at the ceremony, “When parents teach their children what is meant by courage, the story of John Lewis will come to mind — an American who knew that change could not wait for some other person or some other time; whose life is a lesson in the fierce urgency of now. He was known by colleagues on both sides of the aisle as the Conscience of the Congress. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi issued a statement Friday in which she hoped Lewis’ memory might “be an inspiration that moves us all to, in the face of injustice, make ‘good trouble, necessary trouble’.”

Lewis refused to attend President Trump’s inauguration in 2017, questioning the legitimacy of the election in the face of reports of Russian interference. As of press time, Trump had not commented on Lewis’ passing.

The post Civil rights leader and congressman John Lewis dies at 80 appeared first on JURIST – News – Legal News & Commentary.

Source: Civil rights leader and congressman John Lewis dies at 80

Investigations and lawsuits launched after federal agents detain Portland protesters

by

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.”

 


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

 

 

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

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

by

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

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

Photo of girl: by Roi Dimor on Unsplash

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

by

President Trump banned nearly all permanent immigration and temporary workers last month for the remainder of the year. His order will affect as many as half a million workers and immigrants if consulates reopen, other COVID-19 travel restrictions are lifted, and migration resumes to last year’s levels. It will also affect about 20,000 U.S. employers seeking to hire foreign workers over the next six months.

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.

Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States Select States

The H-1B category for high skilled workers represents the largest number of employers with 59,427 employers receiving labor condition application approvals and 29,012 employers receiving petition approvals for initial or new workers in 2019 (Table 1). Only 38 percent of their H-1B initial hires were abroad. The H-2B nonagricultural category had about 5,000 employers receive labor certification application approvals in recent years. The most recent year’s data for 2017 show 3,788 employers who received petition approvals (Table 2). Nearly all H-2B workers came from abroad.

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.

This policy choice makes no sense and cannot be justified economically.

The raw data for the J-1 Summer Work and Travel Program is not available, but very few J-1 employers (197 of 15,889) hire under the H-2B program, which covers similar lower-skilled jobs, so it is fair to assume little overlap with other categories.

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

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

by

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.

 

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

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

by

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

Trump administration abandons new restrictive student visa policy in face of legal actions

by

US District Judge Allison D. Burroughs announced Tuesday that the Department of Homeland Security has agreed to rescind its controversial new rule that would have prohibited international students taking university courses entirely online during the COVID-19 pandemic from staying in the US.

The parties in Harvard v. US Department of Homeland Security informed the court that they came to an agreement with the government that moots the previous necessity for a temporary injunction. The exact details of the agreement remain unclear. The agreement will, however, mark a return to ICE’s March policy directive.  That directive allowed student holders of F-1 and M-1 visas to remain in the US for the duration of the COVID-19 crisis even if they are taking classes exclusively online.

 

Reuters is also reporting that a DHS official has said that “the details of any future regulation on this issue remain under discussion,” and that “officials are still deciding whether to treat students already in the United States differently than students seeking to enter the country for the first time.” Traditionally, traveling to the US on a student visa to take only online courses has been prohibited.

“The Trump Administration’s sudden reversal, in the face of a court challenge it was destined to lose, is a victory for these students, the colleges and universities at which they learn and the communities to which they contribute,” Feuer said.

On Monday, a coalition of 20 schools, including USC, sued the government in a bid to overturn the policy that would deprive foreign students of their United States visas if their fall classes are held solely online.

USC announced Thursday that international students who need to take an in-person class this fall to maintain their visa status and avoid being deported under the new policy will be able to enroll in the course at no cost.

 

The policy, announced July 6, had triggered a wave of distress and outrage prompting Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to file a lawsuit, with 17 states, 26 municipalities and many other universities filing amicus briefs or taking similar action. Under the government’s policy, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had also required universities to notify them no later than Wednesday whether they planned to hold classes entirely online this fall.

The past week has been a roller coaster ride for current and prospective F-1 international students. On July 6th, SEVP had announced a new policy prohibiting F-1 students from attending schools that had opted for 100% online courses this fall due to COVID-19 concerns. Lawsuits were quickly filed, most notably by Harvard, which had recently announced it’s plans for 100% online instruction. Because the new policy required schools to take action by July 15th, the judge in the case was expected to make a quick decision on Harvard’s request for a preliminary injunction to block the policy from taking effect.

To everyone’s surprise, yesterday’s court hearing ended quickly with an announcement that a settlement had been reached and ICE would be rescinding the July 6th policy.

Today, ICE has published new guidance regarding how students can maintain F-1 status while courses are online: https://www.ice.gov/doclib/coronavirus/covid19faq.pdf

Here are the key takeaways:

  • The new guidance allows F-1 students (both current and new) to study at in-person or hybrid programs in the United States.
  • The new guidance allows current F-1 students to temporarily count online classes toward a full course of study in excess of the normal limits (ie. they are continuing the policy announced in March 2020 for current F-1 students https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Document/2020/Coronavirus%20Guidance_3.13.20.pdf)
  • The new guidance appears to allow new F-1 students who have already arrived in the US and reported to their school to temporarily count online classes toward a full course of study in excess of the normal limits.
  • The new guidance appears to not allow new F-1 students who have not arrived in the US to travel to the US for 100% online programs. Instead, the guidance instructs new students outside the US to remain in their home country. These students may choose to attend the 100% online program remotely from their home country and remain active in the SEVIS system. If lack of technology resources or other issues make the student unable to participate in the online program, the student must work with the school DSO to keep the SEVIS record active and defer the program of study until in-person classes resume.
  • The new guidance leaves some unanswered questions about OPT and CPT and indicates that DHS is still evaluating issues such as the 90/150 unemployment limit, hours reduced below 20 hours per week, applying for OPT from outside the US, etc.
  • The guidance confirms that CPT, OPT and STEM OPT employment can be remote work.

Source: Trump administration abandons new restrictive student visa policy in face of legal actions

USCIS Holds Drive-Thru Naturalization Ceremonies to Work Through COVID-19 Backlog

by

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services expects, by the end of July, to have worked through nearly the entire backlog of naturalization oath ceremonies put on hold in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The agency is now providing new ways to take the oath, including drive-thru naturalization ceremonies.

The cancellation of oath ceremonies had prevented 120,000 immigrants from becoming U.S. citizens. Each person had fulfilled all the requirements for U.S. citizenship except the taking of the oath. This, in turn, prevented them thus far from registering to vote in the November elections.

USCIS closed its offices to the public from March 18 to June 4 in response to the pandemic. Initially, the agency offered no alternatives to the traditional oath ceremonies, which are normally held in a packed courtroom or auditorium.

On June 10, two immigrants’ rights groups filed a lawsuit on behalf of prospective new citizens in the Philadelphia area. The organizations asked the court to provide their plaintiffs “with the ability to immediately take the oath.”

Since reopening public offices on June 4, the agency has started rescheduling those ceremonies while observing social-distancing protocols. In California and Michigan, for instance, oath ceremonies are being held on a drive-thru basis. Federal judges administer the oath to new citizens who remain in their cars.

On July 1, USCIS announced that it “has naturalized approximately 64,500 new citizens over the past month and anticipates completing nearly all postponed administrative naturalization ceremonies by the end of July.”

However, this timeline could be disrupted if the agency follows through on plans to furlough roughly two-thirds of its workforce in response to a funding crisis. USCIS is asking Congress for an infusion of $1.2 billion in emergency funding to compensate for a budget shortfall it claims is due to the pandemic.

The agency receives most of its funds through the fees people pay for immigration benefits and has said that its funding dried up when USCIS offices were closed to the public.

Without the emergency funding, the agency says it will have no choice but to furlough most of its employees, and over 13,000 USCIS employees have already received furlough notices. This will cripple its ability to process immigration benefit applications and administer naturalization oath ceremonies.

 

It is important to note, however, that USCIS has a long history of fiscal mismanagement which precedes the current pandemic. COVID-19 is not the only cause of the funding shortfall that the agency is now experiencing.

If USCIS furloughs the bulk of its workforce, oath ceremonies would come to a near standstill again. Potentially tens of thousands of people who should have been able to vote in the November elections will most likely be unable to do so. Given that these individuals have already fulfilled all the requirements to become U.S. citizens, this would be a travesty—particularly given the historic stakes of this election.

Source: USCIS Holds Drive-Thru Naturalization Ceremonies to Work Through COVID-19 Backlog

YouTube:

Bloomberg QuickTake News

The Administration is Weaponizing COVID-19 to End Immigration

by

In early January 2020, the first identified cases of COVID-19 caused by the novel coronavirus were reported in Wuhan, China. On January 30, 2020, the first reported case of person-to-person transmission of COVID-19 was confirmed in the U.S. Instead of treating COVID-19 as a humanitarian and scientific problem to be addressed on behalf of the people of the United States, Trump and his allies politicized their response from the beginning, and used COVID-19 to go after their perceived enemies: China, Iran, and, mostly, immigrants.

 

The dysfunctional response and lack of leadership have led to the known deaths of more than 130,000 U.S. citizens and residents, and probably far more. The numbers are significantly undercounted because some states like Florida refuse to report people who have died of COVID-19 if they are undocumented or not residents of the state. (In fact, the Florida governor fired the state statistician when she complained they were politically manipulating the data).

 

Other states such as Nebraska refuse to require companies to report people with COVID-19, including immigrants, who work in meatpacking and other factories, saying it is a “business decision.” These responses, as frightening as they are, pale in comparison to the use of COVID-19 to rewrite the immigration laws of the United States consistent with the administration’s long-held agenda to essentially end immigration to the country.

Trump’s use of Presidential Proclamations and Executive Orders, even before COVID-19, demonstrated how immigration laws can be radically altered without congressional consent. For the first time since INA §212(f) was enacted, Executive Orders were issued to ban all citizens of certain countries. In contrast to the targeted approach of past Executive Orders, the Orders issued in 2017–18 banned 150 million Muslims from the U.S. and all citizens of at least seven countries. The Supreme Court upheld this unprecedented use of presidential power in Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S.Ct. 2392 (2018). Although always pictured as “short term,” these bans have remained in effect for years.

 

Having the taste of success from the slim majority of the Supreme Court who believes in the “unitary-Executive” (a Dick Cheney doctrine to allow the President to exercise kingly powers), Trump then issued his Health Insurance ban. By Presidential Proclamation an immigrant (with certain exceptions) is barred from entry unless “covered by approved health insurance” within 30 days of entry or “possesses the financial resources to pay for reasonably foreseeable medical costs.” A nationwide preliminary injunction, however, was issued enjoining the Proclamation’s effect. and the 9th Circuit denied a stay of the order.

 

But then came the novel coronavirus and Trump, Miller, and their restrictionist friends saw an opportunity. They could now ban their perceived enemies (China, Iran, and even European Union countries–but noticeably not Russia despite it having one of the highest COVID-19 infection rates in the world) and could transform immigration through Presidential Proclamations. This year, Trump has issued one travel ban after another targeting China, Iran, the Schengen Countries, UK/Ireland, Brazil and most recently Chinese graduate students who are working in perceived sensitive military applied areas. The major ban came on Apr. 22, 2020.

On that day Trump issued the proclamation banning immigration into the United States except for the most restrictive categories possible under the guise of protecting “us” from the virus and protecting hard-working Americans facing unemployment.

He essentially shut down immigration into the United States. The Proclamation suspends and limits the entry of all immigrants seeking to enter the United States if:

(1) they are outside the United States on Apr. 23, 2020

(2) they do not have an immigrant visa valid on Apr. 23, 2020

(3) they do not have an official travel document other than a visa

(such as a transportation letter, an appropriate boarding foil, or an advance parole document) that is valid on Apr. 23, 2020 or is issued thereafter permitting travel to the U.S.

In essence, it bans everyone except the spouses and children of USCs, EB-5, and special immigrants from Iraq and Afghanistan. This is in keeping with Miller and Trump’s often-stated goal of ending family migration (they call it “chain migration”) and ending all employment categories by replacing them with a point system. Although the ban was “only” for 60 days, Trump signaled that it would be expanded to nonimmigrant visas. And expanded it was.

On June 22, 2020, Trump issued Proclamation 10052, Suspension of Entry of Immigrants and Nonimmigrants Who Present a Risk to the United States Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak (June 22, 2020), 85 FR 38263-67 (Jun. 25, 2020). Proclamation 10054, Amendment to Proclamation 10052 (June 29, 2020), 85 FR 40085 (July 2, 2020).

This ban extended the earlier immigrant ban until Dec. 31, 2020, and now included a nonimmigrant ban. Trump banned the following NIV categories with limited exceptions: (a) H-1B and H-2B, and any persons accompanying or following to join such H-1Bs or H-2Bs; (b) Js participating in an intern, trainee, teacher, camp counselor, au pair, or summer work travel program, and any person accompanying or follow to join such J entrant; and (c) L visa and any person accompanying or following to join such L

There is no doubt in my mind that this ban will remain in effect for the entirety of Trump’s tenure in office unless the courts intervene, or he forces Congress to eliminate family- and employment-based quotas and replace them with a point system. Of course, this will ultimately turn on the Supreme Court, but it is highly unlikely that the “unitary-Executive” slim majority of the Court would do anything but rubber-stamp Trump’s broad use of Executive power.

But the June 22, 2020 ban also foreshadowed other horrible practices and regulations that this administration is rushing to complete before Jan. 20, 2020.

The proclamation asks DHS to take action that would ban most employment authorization of nonimmigrants and others in the United States and engage in other  “additional measures” that include:

(a) directing  HHS and CDC (“shall”) to provide guidance to DOS and DHS on implementing measures to reduce the risk of persons seeking entry of introducing, transmitting, or spreading the virus that causes COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2)

(b)  directing to  DOL and DHS (“shall”) to consider promulgating regulations to ensure that persons seeking admission under EB-2, EB-3 or H-1B do not disadvantage U.S. workers. DOL shall undertake investigations pursuant to INA §212(n)(2)(G)(i) [LCA and H-1b practice violations]

(c) directing that DHS shall: : (i) take action prohibiting eligibility for any immigration benefit unless the applicant has been registered with biographical and biometric information including photos, signatures, and fingerprints; (ii) prohibit employment authorization to persons who (a) have final orders of removal; (b) who are inadmissible or deportable from the U.S.; (c) who have been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a criminal offense;  and (iii) promulgate regulations or other appropriate action regarding the allocation of visas pursuant to INA §214(g)(3) ensuring that H-1Bs do not disadvantage U.S. workers.

 

While Covid-19 was tearing through the U.S. Trump also issued a Presidential Memorandum on Visa Sanctions (Apr. 10, 2020), that is designed to force other countries to take back their citizens even if they caught COVID-19 courtesy of ICE detention centers.

 

Numerous newspaper reports have noted that Trump has sent people back to Haiti and other countries knowing they had active cases of COVID-19.  And finally, using COVID-19 as cover, all embassies and consulates around the world have been closed for over two months without any determination of the individualized conditions in those countries that may warrant some or full work on adjudicating visas. Instead, they are only open for “emergency” services which are defined as services to USCs who have problems abroad.

 

 

Source: The Administration is Weaponizing COVID-19 to End Immigration

Business Leaders Urge Trump to Leave DACA Alone After Court Ruling

by

A group of prominent business leaders urged President Trump on Saturday to leave in place a program affecting roughly 800,000 young immigrants who are shielded from deportation, saying it would disrupt the economy and impact the battle against the coronavirus.

The letter, from members of the Coalition for the American Dream, an alliance of business and industry leaders, comes after the Supreme Court ruled last month that the Trump administration improperly wound down the Obama-era program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, a finding that was made on procedural grounds.

The signers of the letter included executives with Amazon, General Motors, Hilton Worldwide, Target, Apple, Google, and Facebook, as well as groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and almost every sector of the manufacturing industry.

Audio:

15:14 – 18:38 Business Leaders Urge Trump to Leave DACA Alone After Court Ruling Executives with companies including Target, Apple, Google and Facebook warned the president that any actions related to DACA would disrupt the economy and affect the battle against the coronavirus.

“As large American employers and employer organizations, we strongly urge you to leave the DACA program in place,” members of the group wrote about the program, which applies to people who were brought to the United States as children. “DACA recipients have been critical members of our workforce, industries, and communities for years now, and they have abided by the laws and regulations of our country in order to maintain their DACA status.”

The letter went on to say that “their work and commitment to our companies, their families and communities are critical to our nation’s strength, especially since there are tens of thousands of DACA recipients working as front line doctors and nurses and in other critical industries fighting Covid-19.”

“This is no time to disrupt the economic recovery of our companies and communities, nor the time to jeopardize the health and safety of these vulnerable individuals,” the letter said, noting that polls have consistently shown voters don’t want to see DACA recipients deported. “We ask that you leave DACA in place and refrain from taking any additional administrative actions that would negatively impact the DACA program.”

Mr. Trump has suggested he would try again to rescind the program, which he has alternately praised and criticized.

On Friday, in an interview with the Spanish-language network Telemundo, Mr. Trump gave a confusing statement about his plans to write an immigration-related executive order in about four weeks.

“DACA is going to be just fine,” Mr. Trump said, adding that he was going to issue a “big executive order. I have the power to do it as president and I’m going to make DACA a part of it.”

Then he immediately said, “But, we put it in, and we’ll probably going to then be taking it out.” At another point, he said that it would be a “very big bill” that would call for merit-based immigration and include a DACA provision. He then said there would be a “road to citizenship” in the executive order — which he repeatedly confused with a piece of legislation. Presidents cannot create a pathway to citizenship without congressional action.

Almost immediately after Mr. Trump’s interview, a White House spokesman issued a statement that was quite different from what the president said. The statement said that Mr. Trump was working on an executive order to “establish a merit-based immigration system to further protect U.S. workers,” something that the White House has been planning for weeks. The statement made clear it would not relate to DACA or a “road to citizenship.”

Source: Business Leaders Urge Trump to Leave DACA Alone After Court Ruling

Video: Thoughts America/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ2yDM98o-c