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.

 

JUST IN: California will become the first state to sue the Trump admin. over guidelines issued this week that bar international students from remaining in the U.S. if they can take classes online, state Attorney General Xavier Becerra says. https://t.co/GEYNo6z4AF

— MSNBC (@MSNBC) July 9, 2020

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.

Leaders of 12 Christian organizations urged the Trump administration to rescind a policy requiring international students to leave the US or transfer if their colleges hold classes entirely online this fall. https://t.co/TbF9QbSGDe

— Christianity Today (@CTmagazine) July 13, 2020

 

Trump’s visa-policy reversal means thousands of area’s international students can stay in U.S. https://t.co/SIOfwHj9V7 pic.twitter.com/3HM4AbTtet

— Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (@PittsburghPG) July 15, 2020

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

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.

 

In America, you can get almost anything in a drive-thru. Because of the pandemic, immigrants who have completed all the requirements of citizenship are pulling into parking lots for socially-distant naturalization ceremonies. @SteveHartmanCBS reports. https://t.co/cvPRlZ6OqG pic.twitter.com/2RfB5xOKWh

— CBS Sunday Morning 🌞 (@CBSSunday) July 5, 2020

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:

When Rebecca Trimble was a little girl, she wore red, white and blue to Independence Day parades. In middle school, she was a flag-bearer for the Girl Scouts. During her teenage years, the Backstreet Boys blared from a boom box in her bedroom.

It was on the eve of getting married in 2012 that she realized there was something amiss in her all-American upbringing. Adopted as an infant from Mexico, she discovered that what she thought was a minor mix-up in her paperwork was something else entirely. Eventually, she realized that not only was she not American, she did not, in the government’s view, belong in the United States at all.

This year, a letter from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services arrived in the remote corner of western Alaska where Trimble cooks for homeless people and where her husband, John, is the only dentist in town.

“You are not authorized to remain in the United States,” it said, ordering her to depart the country within 33 days or face deportation.

“I feel incredibly vulnerable,” Trimble, 30, said as her two boys, Elliot, 5, and Jay, 4, played in their Bethel apartment. “I am putting my faith in a miracle.”

Lax oversight of international adoptions for years fueled a booming trade in babies. In the 1980s and ’90s, Americans seeking children were tricked into paying organized rings for babies smuggled across the border. In the early 2000s, children wrongly taken from their parents by brokers in Vietnam, Guatemala and other countries were presented as orphans to American adoption agencies. In other cases, parents did not understand, or did not follow, the rules for making foreign adoptions fully legal.

“There are too many people in limbo through no fault of their own,” said Susan Jacobs, a retired ambassador who was the special adviser on adoptions at the State Department between 2010 and 2017. “They find out in their 20s, and are held accountable for what their parents did or didn’t do when they were babies.”

The Adoptee Rights Campaign, a group that promotes citizenship for adoptees, estimates that at least 35,000 people in the United States lack U.S. citizenship because their adoptive parents failed to secure it for them.

They have started families of their own, only to learn the truth when they went to vote, tried to obtain a passport or got into trouble with the law. More recently, their precarious status has been laid bare when they applied for a Real ID, a license with stricter standards that will be required for domestic air travel in 2021.

“Adopted adults are discovering they are not citizens after thinking they were Americans all their lives,” said Gregory Luce, an immigration and adoptee rights lawyer in Minneapolis.

Adopted adults are discovering they are not citizens after thinking they were Americans all their lives.” – Gregory Luce, Minneapolis lawyer

In 2001, Congress provided relief for adoptees below the age of 18 who lacked citizenship, and the federal government has been willing to help others adjust their status on a case-by-case basis. But that flexibility appears to have diminished under the Trump administration’s restrictive immigration agenda.

Trimble’s story began when her adoptive father, George Wilson, a recreational vehicle mechanic in Salem, Oregon, and his wife, Pamela Edmonds, gave up on conceiving a child after eight years of trying. One day in 1989, they got word from friends in Mexico that a baby about to be born there would need a home. They agreed to pay the medical bills and headed for Mexico.

Three days later, they were homebound with their daughter. At the border, a U.S. agent peered into their vehicle, where Rebecca was bundled up in her new mother’s arms; he waved them through. The next month, a birth certificate arrived from Mexico that listed them as Rebecca Lynn Wilson’s parents, which they thought — incorrectly — was all they needed to render the adoption legal.

Becky, as they called her, “was such a joy, so smart and so loving,” Edmonds, now 62, recalled.

Eventually, Becky learned that she was adopted. “I didn’t think I was any less American.”

After her parents separated, Trimble and her mother moved to Vancouver, Washington. At Hudson’s Bay High School, Becky excelled in her classes, took up bowling and managed the track team.

One of her teachers encouraged the class to register to vote ahead of the 2008 presidential election, and that November, Trimble voted for the only time in her life.

She fell in love with a fellow student, John Trimble, a distance runner who took her to the prom. After high school, the couple decided to get married and thought about a road trip to Canada for their honeymoon.

In the spring of 2012, Rebecca Trimble applied for an enhanced ID, an alternative to a passport that Americans can use to enter the United States from Canada or Mexico.

A clerk studied her Mexican birth certificate, handed it back to her and said that Trimble had to show further proof of U.S. citizenship, such as a naturalization certificate. She was stumped.

“I go to my mom and ask her questions, and she doesn’t know. John and I started researching,” she recalled.

Only much later did the extent of the problems with how her parents handled her adoption become apparent. Before leaving Mexico, Rebecca Trimble’s parents should have obtained official custody of their new baby from a Mexican judge and then secured an immigrant visa for her at a U.S. consulate.

In February, Rebecca Trimble received a two-page decision denying her a green card.

The denial stated that on Jan. 17, 2008, she had illegally registered to vote and that she had then voted in a general election that November. “Therefore, your application must be and hereby is denied,” it said.

Trimble had 33 days to depart the country, or face deportation.

“I felt I had no identity at that moment. I meant nothing,” she said, her voice breaking.

In March, the Trimbles’ lawyer, Margaret Stock, filed a motion to reopen Trimble’s case, and the Bethel City Council passed a resolution urging federal representatives and agencies to recognize “the uniqueness of Rebecca Trimble’s situation.”

Last month, Immigration Services declined the request. Stock’s next move is to sue the agency in federal court to secure a green card or citizenship for her client.

Both Alaska senators have introduced a private bill “for the relief of Becky Trimble” that would be required to pass the House and the Senate, a process that could take years.

Rebecca Trimble, whose legal bills have mounted, has not been informed that a deportation case has commenced against her, perhaps because the coronavirus pandemic has slowed immigration enforcement.

For now, she is trying to resume what she called “a quiet, normal life.” On Jay’s birthday, she baked lemon cake with tundra-blueberry frosting, and the family celebrated on Zoom with friends and relatives. She tried to suppress fears of immigration agents showing up to take her away.

This story was originally published at nytimes.com.

Read it here.

and  https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/woman-without-a-country-adopted-at-birth-and-deportable-at-30/

Source: A Woman Without a Country: Adopted at Birth and Deportable at 30

YouTube:

KGW News

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to surge across the United States, many universities have chosen to temporarily move to online-only classes to protect public health. However, new guidance from the Trump administration will not allow international students to stay in the United States if their classes move online this fall.

 

(ICE) oversees the program and the data/tracking system schools use to enroll international students. Over one million students participate in the program each year. This allows them to study at K-12 schools, colleges, universities, seminaries, conservatories, and language training programs.

By regulation, academic students (F-1) are limited to one online class or three credit hours per term as part of their full course load. Vocational students (M-1) cannot take any. When the COVID-19 pandemic first hit in March, ICE issued temporary exemptions allowing international students to move to online-only classes during the spring and summer semesters. ICE originally stated that these exemptions would apply “for the duration of the emergency,” but now will not continue into the fall.

Students whose programs have moved fully online will no longer be allowed to remain in the United States. They either “must depart the country” or transfer to a school offering in-person instruction. If they do not leave the United States or transfer, ICE says that students “may face immigration consequences including, but not limited to, the initiation of removal proceedings.”

The restrictions apply to both incoming and continuing international students. If an international student wishes to attend an American school that only offers online classes, the student won’t be granted a visa.

Students already in the United States would have to transfer universities or leave the country even if their program switches to fully online partway through the semester. Exceptions exist for the very limited number of students who qualify for a reduced course load or medical leave.

Students whose programs switch to a “hybrid” model, with some in-person classes and some online classes, can remain in the United States. However, these students will need certification from their university that they are taking the minimum number of online courses possible. Students in vocational or English language training programs will not be allowed to take any online classes.

Many universities have already announced that they will be holding classes completely or partially online this fall. The majority plan to hold in-person classes, but 9% plan to hold classes fully online,  24% are planning for a hybrid model, and 7% have not yet decided.

These decisions could change depending on the progression of COVID-19 over the summer. Yet ICE has imposed very short deadlines on universities to update operational plans and issue new eligibility certificates to international students.

 

Coronavirus: International students react to U.S. decision they must leave if taking online courses

Two international students studying in the U.S. reacted on Tuesday to the decision by the government that they will have to leave the country if their classes are all taught online this fall, with one student saying he was crying upon hearing the news because he would face difficulty, both in returning home due to no flights and in school due to internet capacity in his home country of Venezuela.

Another student from the Bahamas said while her school is offering in-person classes, she was cautioned it could change due to a local COVID-19 outbreak, which she worries would prevent her from completing her MBA. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said it would not allow holders of student visas to remain in the country if their school was fully online for the fall.

ICE said these students must transfer to schools that teach in-person classes or leave, or they potentially face deportation proceedings. As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to hit the U.S., with cases passing three million, colleges and universities have begun to announce plans for the fall 2020 semester, with Harvard stating it would conduct course instructions online, while Eastern Kentucky University plans to hold classes in-person.

 

This is bad. ICE just told students here on student visas that if their school is going online-only this fall, the students must depart the United States and cannot remain through the fall semester. https://t.co/8DteVzexLB pic.twitter.com/OfkWRKFZZE

— Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (@ReichlinMelnick) July 6, 2020

The end of the exemptions will impose an unreasonable hardship on students and universities. Students may not be able to participate in online courses from their home countries due to internet connectivity issues or time differences. Certain online resources are not available in some countries, such as G Suite in China. Some students may not be able to return home due to financial hardship or ongoing COVID-19 travel bans. For some, returning would mean separation from a U.S. citizen spouse or child.

Academic institutions are already under financial pressure, with enrollment dropping due to the economic recession and loss of the in-person college experience. Students who cannot study this semester might not return to their programs later, choosing to drop out. Some who try to return may be prevented from doing so by COVID-19 travel restrictions. ICE’s guidelines force schools to choose between losing international students and risking public health. The decision also damages the United States’ reputation as a leader in international education.

Harvard University, which recently announced that its classes will be completely online in the fall, stated:

“This guidance undermines the thoughtful approach taken on behalf of students by so many institutions, including Harvard, to plan for continuing academic programs while balancing the health and safety challenges of the global pandemic.”

Losing international students could also result in an economic loss at a time when the U.S. economy is already in trouble. International students contribute over $40 billion to the economy and support over 400,000 jobs each year.

The COVID-19 pandemic has required unprecedented flexibility in procedures at every level of our society. Immigration should be no different. Immigration agencies should make exceptions to requirements that cannot reasonably be followed during the pandemic.

Source: ICE Says International Students Must Take Classes in Person or Leave the Country

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services today announced a regulatory change to deter aliens from illegally entering the United States and from filing frivolous, fraudulent, or otherwise non-meritorious claims for asylum to obtain an employment authorization document. This rule does not alter asylum eligibility criteria in any way and will be effective on Aug. 25.

This rule stems from the April 29, 2019, Presidential Memorandum on Additional Measures to Enhance Border Security and Restore Integrity to Our Immigration System, which emphasizes that it is the policy of the United States to manage humanitarian immigration programs in a safe and orderly manner, and to promptly deny benefits to those who do not qualify.

“Safeguarding the integrity of our nation’s legal immigration system from those who seek to exploit or abuse it is key to the

USCIS

mission,” said Joseph Edlow, the USCIS Deputy Director for Policy. “The reforms in this rule are designed to restore integrity to the asylum system and to reduce any incentive to file an asylum application for the primary purpose of obtaining work authorization.

It also deters frivolous and non-meritorious applications by eliminating employment authorization for aliens who have failed to file for asylum within one year of their last entry until USCIS or an immigration judge determines the alien’s eligibility for asylum.”

The rule prevents aliens who, absent good cause, illegally entered the United States from obtaining employment authorization based on a pending asylum application.

Additionally, the rule defines new bars and denials for employment authorization, such as for certain criminal behavior; extends the wait time before an asylum applicant can apply for employment authorization from 150 days to 365 calendar days; limits the employment authorization validity period to a maximum of two years; and automatically terminates employment authorization when an applicant’s asylum denial is administratively final.

Source: USCIS Rule Strengthens Employment Eligibility Requirements for Asylum Seekers

CASSILS The urgency of “In Plain Sight” has become paramount as people began to die from Covid-19 in detention camps. We had initially planned for this project to occur without any press, but when the pandemic hit, we launched our Instagram page that features short interviews with our artists and calls to action. It’s been a great opportunity to take action. In recent months, I’ve had 11 exhibitions canceled or paused. Almost every artist I know has, too.

There is a rich history of artists looking toward the sky for inspiration. Yves Klein used it as inspiration for his conceptual blue paintings. Recently, the artist Jammie Holmes flew George Floyd’s final words above five cities across the country. What other works have inspired your skytyping project?–

ESPARZA “Repellent Fence” (2015) by the art collective Postcommodity was particularly important for us. They created a metaphorical suture along the migration path between the United States and Mexico with tethered balloons to speak about land art in relation to permanence and shifting landscapes. In the same way that they used the land to talk about the divisive power of colonial structures, we are hoping to index the sky as a symbol of inspiration and hope. And the sky is able to migrate messages across borders. When our message is skytyped above San Diego, the words will likely drift into Tijuana. And when our words are written above Los Angeles, they will have a shared orbital path, allowing phrases like “Abolition Now” and “Stop Crimigration Now” to coalesce into a circular message.

CASSILS We are also thinking of artists who have used the language of advertisement to get their points across. Artists like Lynda Benglis and Barbara Hammer. The AIDS Memorial Quilt was another important reference because it demonstrates how people can come together through a patchwork of activism.

Many artists involved with the project are also queer, which may or may not be a coincidence. We are thinking about the words of José Esteban Muñoz, who wrote in 2009 that “queerness exists for us as an ideality that can be distilled from the past and used to imagine a future.” We see a liberation for queer, migrant and Black communities as deeply bound together because they are all rooted in the issues of white supremacy and colonization. Our jobs as queer artists is to imagine the future.

ESPARZA And we are putting the proposal of care, which is central to many queer communities, at the forefront of this project. We want to imagine what care looks like for people who are impacted by migrant detention and Covid-19.

CASSILS Bringing the skytypers into the fold has also been a unique experience. And with some messages being written in Cree, Farsi and Urdu, this will likely be the first time many people will see their own languages in the sky. There has also been a challenge to imagine how to write languages in the sky that don’t use the Roman alphabet. Skytypers usually work in fleets of five planes each, so any image or letter must exist along a five-point matrix. For artists on the project, that means experimenting with the grid and drawing out words like “freedom” in Farsi or Urdu. It’s interesting to note the challenges of what we can put into the sky, and how we might overcome those barriers.

Source: Protesting U.S. Immigration Policies, Artists Aim for the Sky

 

A recent Sacramento Bee article points out five times California fought President Trump on immigration within the last few years. Predictably, it omits the consequences of each of its actions. Below are how its elected and appointed officials created or could have created problems for the state and the nation:

“A federal appeals court in California ruled President Trump’s diversion of $2.5 billion from military construction projects to fund the Mexico border wall ‘unlawful.’”

Sabotaging funding for the southern border wall is reckless. Not only does southern California border Mexico, it also boasts the busiest land crossing in the entire world: The San Ysidro Port of Entry. With border walls proven to deter narcotic flows, illegal immigration, and dangerous criminals, it is absurd that the state stymied this funding. California has the largest illegal alien population in the United States—costing it more than $23 billion annually (the most of any U.S. state). These figures are likely to increase with its decision to block border wall funding.

“In May 2018, California fought against the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census when [Attorney General Xavier] Becerra filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration in the U.S. District Court in Northern California.”

The addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census would have not been unprecedented and could have brought numerous advantages to California and the rest of the nation. Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution requires the federal government to conduct a nationwide count of every person living in the United States every 10 years and questions involving citizenship occurred in surveys as early as 1820 and as recently as 1950.

Similarly, the American Community Survey (ACS) collects demographic data on an ongoing basis and asks about citizenship status. All of this data helps determine how many individuals, both legal and illegal, are living in each U.S. state. These figures ultimately determine the distribution of federal funding and electoral votes. In doing so, California undermined the integrity of the system under which federal funds are disbursed and electoral systems by opposing the inclusion of this question.

“California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a new law on Oct. 11, 2019 to phase out private, for-profit immigration detention facilities and prisons in the state by 2028.”

Eliminating immigration detentions jeopardizes public safety and undermines the nation’s judicial system. With a reduction in immigration detentions, public safety could become compromised as many of the detainees have been convicted of more serious crimes than immigration offenses.

Additionally, those released with a pending court date more often than not do not have valid asylum claims and are unlikely to show up to their hearing. With immigration detentions already nearly maxed out, it is irresponsible that its governor signed onto this law.

“The ‘public charge’ rule, proposed by the Trump administration in 2019, has had what advocates call a “chilling effect” among immigrant communities. The policy denies an immigrant’s green card or visa application if they are likely to be dependent on public assistance, like food stamps or other programs. Last summer, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Becerra filed a lawsuit to block the policy.”

Public charge laws have existed for centuries and are based on the rational principle that immigrants be self-sufficient. The nation must prioritize self-sufficiency and financial responsibility as most its social safety net is financed by taxpayers. Providing millions of dollars in benefits to people who are fiscal burdens to the nation would be careless. Today, almost two-thirds (63 percent) of all immigrant-led households use at least one welfare program – compared to only 35 percent of native-headed households. With welfare programs and illegal immigration costing the country hundreds of billions annually, finite resources must be safeguarded for other societal needs.

“A year after Trump’s inauguration, the president sought to increase vetting procedures for foreign nationals traveling to the U.S in 2017. Trump signed an executive order suspending foreign nationals from seven mostly Muslim countries, including Venezuela, from traveling to the country.”

The president’s travel ban addresses legitimate national security concerns identified by both his administration and those of his predecessor. Congress has delegated to the president clear, unambiguous authority to suspend entry to any alien or class of aliens deemed detrimental to the interests of the United States. Though the president’s order was eventually upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, California’s judicial activism could have compromised public safety and enabled harmful actors abroad the opportunity to wreak havoc on the nation.

As seen by these five actions, the state of California has misguided priorities. Enhancing public safety, reducing fiscal costs, and upholding the rule of law, should be on the top of the state’s interests or really any state’s interests, but instead, it has succumbed to the interests of the open borders lobby and the cosmopolitan agenda.

Source: Five Recent Times California Fought Trump on Immigration—and Why They All Were Mistakes

 President Donald Trump commemorated the 200th mile of the U.S.-Mexico border wall in San Luis, Arizona, on Tuesday, June 23, 2020

Q Can I ask a question on the wall, How’s it looking?

Donald J. Trump replies: ”I think it’s great. It’s great. It’s going to be – it’s really foolproof. It’s solid steel. It’s rebar and concrete inside the steel. So we have a very heavy concrete inside the steel. And inside the concrete, we have rebar. So you have everything you could have. It’s what they wanted, and that’s what we did.”

Donald J. Trump: Any questions?

Q Mr. President, with all the problems that we’re facing right now, why are you determined to end DACA at this time – with unemployment, with COVID?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we’re looking at it. We’ll work it out with DACA. I think good things are happening with DACA. They resubmit, but we’ll work it out. And the Democrats have been playing with DACA for years, and they haven’t done anything. I’ll get it done. I’ll get it done. And we’ll — good things will happen for DACA recipients, and pretty soon.

Q Is there a message for DREAMERS?

THE PRESIDENT: So, we’re going to — yeah. The message is: Put your chin up. Good things are going to happen. You’ll watch. Okay?

Q Why was the suspension on green cards necessary?

THE PRESIDENT: You have to talk up.

Q Suspension on green cards: Why was it necessary?

THE PRESIDENT: So we want to give jobs to Americans right now. Right now we want jobs going to Americans.

Any other questions? Okay. Thank you all very much.

END

“We’re going to build a wall” – it’s something we’ve heard Donald Trump say many times since he started presidency.

Despite the border wall becoming a controversial topic, President Trump continued to find ways to complete his project while nearing the end of his term.

What is the status of the wall?

The US-Mexico border is 1,954 miles (3,145km) long and crosses vast deserts and mountains in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. About 654 miles of that have some sort of manmade barriers, such as fencing or a wall. President Donald J Trump insists on building this wall while nobody really wants to help fund it. This day marked the 216 miles of the border wall, well shy of the 450 miles he has pledged to finish by the end of this 2020. A report Friday by Customs and Border Protection shows that since Trump took office in 2017, $15 billion has been budgeted for about 738 miles of wall.

How much does the wall really cost?

• The original estimate of $5.7 billion dollars would build 234miles of the wall.
• The new estimate is $24.4 million per mile
• $24.4 million per mile does not include the large cost overruns for construction projects. That would bring the total cost to $36.6 million per mile.
• The total estimate does not include the low-ball $870,000 annual cost to maintain the wall.

As the cost of the border wall keeps getting higher, the border wall keeps becoming less of a wall.

 

What exactly is “the wall” and why is the president so intent on getting the billions to fund it?

Supporters argue that:

“This is the most important issue facing our nation. Our border must be secured,” Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Prescott, said in a statement Monday. “Yuma is on the front lines of this defense and I am proud to have supported additional border security.”

1. The Democrats are not willing to compromise on border security.
2. The human cost of illegal immigration is devastating.
3. Taxpayers shoulder the financial costs of illegal immigration.
4. The experts want a border wall to help them fight illegal immigration.
5. The border crisis is not going to solve itself.

 

Those who are against the wall say:

 

Obama on Trump Wall: ‘Good luck with that’

1. A lot of undocumented immigrants are already here.
2. Cartels can outsmart checkpoints.
3. Terrorists aren’t undocumented.
4. Immigration courts are already overwhelmed.

How does the Wall affect the environment?

1. Disrupts wildlife refuges and parks
2. Divides a river
3. Exacerbates flooding
4. Exempts from environmental oversight laws
5. exposes danger to wildlife and plants
6. Threatens diverse landscapes

More on effected endangered species here at National Geographic

 

How does Mexico feel about the Wall?

Here is part of the transcript of the call between Mr. Trump and Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto, which took place on January 27, 2017, and lasted 53 minutes.

Trump: Hello, good morning.

Pena Nieto: Mr. President, good morning.

Trump: How are you, Mr. President?

Pena Nieto: I am good. How are you? It is good to speak with you. Let me switch to Spanish so I will be more comfortable.

Trump: Yes, that would be fine, Enrique.

Pena Nieto: President Trump, I am very glad to hear from you and I know we have had a point of difference that has complicated the situation. Let me tell you clearly what I think is now happening in the route of reaching an agreement between our two nations. The first thing I want to say is that I highly appreciate the openness of your team and the willingness of your team to work to open a new framework between our two countries.

Trump: Thank you.

Pena Nieto: Yes, and I want to also thank you personally for what you said last Wednesday on the importance of Mexico to have a strong economy, and also the responsibility our administration has accepted to stop illegal trafficking of weapons and money coming into Mexico. However, we have found an issue here that marks differences and this is nothing new, Mr. President.

I think that since your visit we have spoken about this and this is what I want to talk about, this difference. Let me tell you, Mr. President, this is not a personal difference. It has nothing to do with you personally, Mr. President.

”But it is unthinkable that I cannot ignore this because we find this completely unacceptable for Mexicans to pay for the wall that you are thinking of building.”

You can read the full transcripts  originally released from the Washington Post here

Despite many who are against the wall, the Trump administration continues to pump money into the border wall, arrests of migrants have declined dramatically compared to 2019, and new restrictions related to the coronavirus continue to prevent migrants and asylum seekers from entering the U.S.

 

In May, Border Patrol arrested more than 21,475 people along the Southern border, according to the latest available data. Of those detained, 19,707 were expelled from the US under a public health order in March.

 

Sources:
New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Times of London, Lonely Planet Guides, Library of Congress, Compton’s Encyclopedia, The Guardian, National Geographic, Smithsonian magazine, The New Yorker, Time, Newsweek, Reuters, AP, AFP, Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic Monthly, The Economist, Global Viewpoint Christian Science Monitor, Foreign Policy, Wikipedia, BBC, CNN, NBC News, Fox News and various books and other publications.