Immigration Reform by Executive Action – Texas v. United States (The Latest)
Back to politics (disguised as a review of a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision).
Briefly, on May 26, 2015, a divided panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to lift a temporary injunction against the implementation of President Obama’s executive action regarding the new November 2014 DAPA program and the expansion of the June 2012 DACA initiative. The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) had asked the 5th Circuit to reverse Texas federal district Judge Andrew S. Hanen’s decision to temporarily block implementation of President Obama’s programs while the lawsuit worked it ways through the courts. The decision states, “[b]ecause the government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its appeal of the injunction, we deny the motion for stay and the request to narrow the scope of the injunction.”
For what it’s worth, I disagree (and I won’t repeat arguments I’ve previously made in this blog support of my position).
As a reminder, twenty-six states are suing the federal government over President Obama’s executive actions on immigration, and Judge Hanen issued an injunction on February 16, 2015 to enjoin DAPA and expanded DACA from taking effect while the lawsuit works its way through the courts. Pending the government’s appeal, the DOJ sought a stay of the injunction, arguing, among other things, that the nation’s immigration policy is the domain of the federal government, not the states. Judge Stephen A. Higginson, in dissent, wrote, “I would not affirm intervention and judicial fiat ordering what Congress has never mandated.”
It is my understanding that 5th Circuit will now hear oral arguments on July 10, 2015 in the Obama Administration’s attempt to lift (not stay) Judge Hanen’s preliminary injunction which blocked expanded DACA and DAPA from taking effect. In the meantime, the underlying case of Texas v. United States is still pending in the district court in Brownsville, Texas before Judge Hanen. The case is still in the early stages of discovery.
I find it interesting that a similar suit challenging President Obama’s actions filed by Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Arpaio v. Obama, was dismissed by a Washington, D.C. federal court at the end of 2014. That case is currently on appeal before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Speaking in dissent, Judge Higginson spoke to the “political nature of this dispute” and noted that the courts have no role in this dispute. The federal court in Washington, D.C. must have understood this when it quickly dismissed Sheriff Arpaio’s similar suit challenging DACA and DAPA.
I have previously argued in this blog and elsewhere that not implementing expanded DACA and DAPA means that our country will not derive substantial economic benefits that the overwhelming weight of the evidence clearly shows would result from their implementation. More importantly, though, the delay or failure to implement expanded DACA and DAPA means millions of families will continue to be forced to live apart, in uncertainty, and under the threat of possible deportation. Please, can we just get past all the politics and implement some meaningful immigration reform? Stay tuned.
“Crimmigration” and the Repeal of Silva Trevino
So I’m going to take a moment to move away from politics and instead discuss some positive developments in the world of “crimmigration.”
On April 10, 2015, former Attorney General Eric Holder vacated in its entirety the November 7, 2008 opinion of Matter of Silva-Trevino,[1] finding that because the Circuit Courts were split and at least two Supreme Court decisions cast doubt on its continued validity, the opinion was no longer useful in determining whether a particular criminal offense is a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude (“CIMT”) under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). What the heck am I talking about?
Back in 2008, then Attorney General Robert Mukasey issued the decision Matter of Silva-Trevino (commonly referred to as Silva-Trevino I), which allowed Immigration Judges to find a foreign national deportable from the United States on the basis of alleged facts never established (i.e., proven) in the foreign national’s criminal case which formed the basis of his or her removal (i.e., deportation) proceedings.
Since this decision, five Circuit Courts of Appeals have rejected Silva-Trevino I. Essentially what was happening was Immigration Judges were re-trying criminal cases in their own courts, and in doing so, they were considering (often unproven) facts that were outside of the foreign national’s Record of Conviction in his or her criminal proceedings.[2]
This was problematic on at least two levels. First, it created great difficulty for criminal defense lawyers to properly advise their clients regarding the potential immigration consequences of taking a plea to certain criminal charges. Second, many of the respondents in removal proceedings were individuals who were detained and without counsel, and who had previously given up their right to trial in their criminal proceeding and agreed to plead guilty with the intent of avoiding the immigration consequences presumably associated with their pleas.
Former Attorney General Holder’s order vacating Silva-Trevino I and its accompanying opinion (commonly referred to now as Silva-Trevino II) cited Supreme Court case law which makes it very clear that any inquiry as to whether a criminal offense is a CIMT for immigration purposes in the future should not go beyond the Record of Conviction.[3]
What does all this mean in practice? Noncitizens can be deported from the United States if they have been convicted of a CIMT (and in some cases, if they’ve been convicted of two CIMT’s).[4] Examples of CIMT’s under various state case law include, without limitation, fraud and theft offenses, offenses in which intentional bodily harm is caused, and various sex-related offenses.
To determine whether a noncitizen has been convicted of a CIMT, immigration officials have generally looked to the “inherent nature” of the offense as opposed to what the defendant actually did in a particular case. Simply stated, the facts of the case are irrelevant. This approach is called the “categorical” approach.”
A few weeks before George W. Bush’s presidency ended, former Attorney General Mukasey issued Silva-Trevino I, which dramatically changed the playing field, and essentially allowed Immigration Judges in certain cases to examine evidence beyond the Record of Conviction to assess whether the defendant’s conduct which formed the basis of his or her conviction involved moral turpitude.
Silva-Trevino I first instructed Immigration Judges to use the traditional “categorical” approach to determine whether a conviction constituted a CIMT. Again, under this analysis, the defendant’s actual conduct was irrelevant. The only question that needed to be answered was whether the elements of the statute of conviction either necessarily fall within the case law definition of a CIMT or never do so. If the Immigration Judge was unable to determine that the prohibited conduct under the statute either always or never involved moral turpitude, then the Immigration Judge was instructed to review the Record of Conviction.[5] Again, the inquiry would end if the court was able to determine whether or not the defendant was necessarily convicted of a CIMT. If the modified categorical approach did not resolve the question one way or the other, then Silva-Trevino I allowed for the Immigration Judge to consider “any additional evidence the adjudicator determines is necessary or appropriate to resolve adequately the moral turpitude question,” whether or not it was contained in the formal Record of Conviction.[6]
As indicated earlier, five federal circuit courts rejected Silva-Trevino I, essentially holding that where immigration consequences are premised on a “conviction,” the immigration statutes are unambiguous in prohibiting an Immigration Judge (or any adjudicator for that matter) from considering simply alleged facts, including evidence outside the Record of Conviction.[7] Indeed, this is what Silva-Trevino II stands for; that is Attorney General Holder’s order prohibits an Immigration Judge from using evidence outside the record of conviction in determining whether an offense involves moral turpitude. Consequently, criminal defense attorneys are now able to assess whether an offense involves moral turpitude and to help their noncitizen client avoid such a designation. This is good news for all.
[1] Matter of Silva-Trevino, 24 I. & N. Dec. 687 (A.G. 2008).
[2] Immigration Judges were considering evidence outside of the Record of Conviction (e.g., the charging document, bill of particulars, verdict or judgment, sentence, minute entries, written plea [if there was one], jury instructions [if there was a trial], presentence report, or probation report) in order to determine whether a foreign national was removable from the United States on the basis of a conviction of a CIMT.
[3] Matter of Silva-Trevino, 26 I. & N. Dec. 550 (A.G. 2015).
[4] See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A), 1227(a)(2)(A)(i), (ii).
[5] This part of the inquiry is generally referred to as the “modified” categorical approach.
[6] Silva-Trevino I at 704.
[7] Silva-Trevino v. Holder, 742 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 2014); Olivas-Motta v. Holder, 716 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2013); Prudencio v. Holder, 669 F.3d 472 (4th Cir. 2012); Fajardo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 659 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2011); and Jean-Louis v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 582 F.3d 462 (3d Cir. 2009).
H-1B Filing Season Comes and Goes: Why the Cap Should be Raised
So, a little more than a year has passed since I wrote about the 2015 – 2016 H-1B filing season being upon us, and here we are again. April 1 has now come and gone, a new H-1B filing season was upon us, because on April 7, 2015, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) announced that it had reached the congressionally mandated H-1B cap for Fiscal Year 2016. So the H-1B filing season, after only seven (7) days, is over for employers who are not eligible to file cap-exempt petitions. What am I talking about?
A little reminder about the H-1B nonimmigrant worker program. An H-1B nonimmigrant visa (or status) is a temporary visa (or, as noted, a status) that may be granted to a foreign national who will perform services in a “specialty occupation.” A specialty occupation requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of a bachelor’s or higher degree, or its equivalent, as a minimum requirement for entry into the occupation in the United States. Representative examples of specialty occupations include architecture, engineering, mathematics, physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, business specialties, accounting, law, theology, and the arts.
Since 1990 (which was the start of the H-1B program), Congress has placed a statutory limit on the number of H-1B nonimmigrant visas made available during each government fiscal year (unless an exemption applies to a petitioning employer). The current statutory cap is 65,000 visas per year, with an additional 20,000 visas for foreign national professionals who have graduated with a Masters or higher degree from a United States college or university. In recent years, the statutory limit has been reached within days of April 1, which is the first day that H-1B visas are made available for the fiscal year that starts on October 1.
So what does U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) do when there are more employers filing petitions than there are H-1B visas available? They employ a lottery to choose whose petition will be adjudicated and whose will be rejected. Imagine telling your client, after they’ve paid your fees to get their case prepared and filed, the USCIS may not select their case to be adjudicated!
That’s right, due to incredibly high demand, USCIS uses a random selection process for all cap-subject petitions received within the first five business days available for filing H-1B petitions in a given fiscal year. (It’s a little more complicated than that with the inclusion of the U.S. Master’s or higher degree exemption limit being factored into the mix, but the point remains the same.)
Which of course begs the question whether the cap makes sense. According to USCIS, in the last ten years, six times the cap has been reached in less than ninety days.[1] In four of those years, the cap was reached in six days or less. This year it was seven (7) days.
I’ve heard (probably) all of the arguments as to why we need the cap (e.g., to protect U.S. workers, wages, etc.). In my opinion, the current regulations implementing the H-1B worker program do that just fine. The simple fact is, and the evidence and literature amply supports the proposition, that the H-1B worker program impacts our economy and employment opportunities of U.S. born workers in a very positive manner.[2]
For example, between 1990 and 2010, the increase in STEM workers in the United States under the H-1B program (i.e., those working in the science, technology, engineering or math fields) were associated with a significant increase in wages for college-educated U.S. born workers in 219 cities in the United States.[3] In addition, H-1B-driven increases in STEM workers in a city were associated with an increase in wages of 7 to 8 percentage points paid to both STEM and non-STEM college educated U.S. workers, while non-college educated workers saw an increase of 3 to 4 percentage points.[4]
What about arguments that the H-1B worker program negatively affects employment rates? Bologna. (I haven’t seen, let alone written, that word in 30 years!) The simple fact is that H-1B workers complement U.S. workers, fill employment gaps in many STEM fields, and expand job opportunities for everyone.
The evidence shows that unemployment rates are low for occupations that use large numbers of H-1B visas. For example, many STEM occupations have very low unemployment,[5] compared to, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the overall national unemployment rate. This means that the demand for labor that exceeds supply.
Finally, what about those that argue that the benefits of the H-1B program are limited to those involved in technology fields? Some even argue that H-1B visas are all taken by Silicon Valley companies. Some even say Microsoft and Google take them all by themselves? Wrong! According to data published by the Brookings Institution, in the 2010 – 2011 fiscal year, there were 106 metropolitan statistical areas across the United States that had at least 250 requests for H-1B workers.[6] And while there are admittedly a lot of H-1B workers that are filling STEM occupations, there is also a significant amount of demand for H-1B workers in healthcare, business, finance, and life science fields.[7]
There are exemptions to the H-1B cap that some employers are eligible for (e.g., institutions of higher education, a related or affiliated non-profit entity, a nonprofit research organization, or a governmental research organization), and it’s a pleasure to represent entities that have an exemption available to them. But the simple fact is, the cap should be raised, significantly, or even eliminated. The evidence is clear that the H-1B visa program enhances our economy in so many important ways.
[1] U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “USCIS Reaches H-1B Cap,” 2005; see also U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “USCIS Reaches H-1B Cap,” 2006 – 2014.
[2] See, e.g., Nicole Kreisberg, “H-1B Visas: No Impact on Wages” (Great Barrington, MA: American Institute for Economic Research, 2014); Giovanni Peri, Kevin Y. Shih, Chad Sparber, and Angie Marek Zeitlin, Closing Economic Windows: How H-1B Visa Denials Cost U.S.-Born Tech Workers Jobs and Wages During the Great Recession (New York, NY: Partnership for a New American Economy, 2014); Giovanni Peri, Kevin Y. Shih, and Chad Sparber, “Foreign STEM Workers and Native Wages and Unemployment in U.S. Cities,” NBER Working Paper No. 20093 (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2014).
[3] Giovanni Peri, Kevin Shih, and Chad Sparber, “Foreign STEM Workers and Native Wages and Employment in U.S. Cities” (Cambridge, MA: The National Bureau of Economic Research, 2014).
[4] Id.
[5] Information Technology Industry Council, the Partnership for a New American Economy, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Help Wanted: The Role of Foreign Workers in the Innovation Economy (Washington, DC: December 2012), pp. 2-3.
[6] Neil G. Ruiz, Jill H. Wilson, and Shyamali Choudhury, “The Search for Skills: Demand for H-1B Immigrant Workers in U.S. Metropolitan Areas” (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2012), p. 1.
[7] Id.
Immigration Reform by Executive Action – Were the President’s Actions Lawful?
Oranhall-Dreamstime.com
Some time has now passed since President Obama announced on November 20, 2014 his intention to go it alone to “fix” of our “broken immigration system.” Since that announcement, lawyers such as myself were hopeful that we could start working with clients on their applications for expanded relief under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”), and later this Spring under the President’s new “deferred action” program for the parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (“LPR’s), commonly known as “DAPA”.
That all came to a screeching halt on February 16, 2015, when Texas federal district Judge Andrew S. Hanen granted a temporary injunction against the implementation of President Obama’s executive action regarding the DAPA program and the expansion of the President’s June 2012 DACA initiative. The injunction temporarily blocks President Obama’s executive action aimed at providing administrative relief from removal to millions of immigrants. President Obama has vowed to appeal. This, of course, begs the question of whether the President’s actions were lawful. I think they were.
A (Very) Brief History of Previous Exercises of Discretionary Relief
President Obama’s administrative action was but the latest among many of his predecessors in the Oval Office who relied on their executive authority to deal with important immigration issues during their administrations. According to the American Immigration Council, since 1956, there have been at least thirty nine (39) instances where a president has exercised his executive authority to protect thousand and sometimes millions of immigrants, in the United States at the time without status, usually in the humanitarian interest of simply keeping families together. So why all the fuss now?
Prosecutorial Discretion, the Immigration Law and Regulations, and the Supreme Court
DACA was established by executive action in June 2012, and was expanded by the President’s announcement in November 2014. DAPA was first announced by the President in November 2014. Prosecutorial discretion generally refers to the authority of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) to decide how the immigration laws should be applied, and it is a legal practice that has existed in law enforcement for quite some time.
For example, the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and its implementing regulations are replete with examples where DHS will either refrain from an enforcement action, like electing not to serve and thereafter file a charging document (commonly known as a Notice to Appear) with the Immigration Court, as well as well as decisions to provide a discretionary remedies when an immigrant is already in removal proceedings, such as granting stays of removal, granting parole, or granting deferred action.
The INA itself authorizes the President’s legal authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion, including by prohibiting judicial review of three (3) types of actions involving the exercise of prosecutorial discretion (i.e., the decisions to commence removal proceedings, to adjudicate cases, and to execute removal orders).
Congress has also legislated deferred action in the INA itself as a means by which the executive branch may use, in the exercise of its prosecutorial discretion, to protect certain victims of crime, abuse, or human trafficking.
Notably, the INA also has a specific provision which recognizes the President’s authority to authorize employment for non-citizens who do not otherwise receive it automatically by virtue of their particular immigration status. See INA § 274A(h)(3). It is this provision, in conjunction with other regulations, that currently confers eligibility for work authorization under DACA (and would do so again under expanded DACA and DAPA).
Beyond this, memoranda issued by federal agencies authorized to implement and enforce our nation’s immigration laws recognize prosecutorial discretion too, including a seminal one issued by legacy-Immigration and Naturalization Service “INS”) Commissioner Doris Meissner in 1990 to her senior agency staff. There are earlier memoranda as well opining as to the legality of prosecutorial discretion too.
Finally, the Supreme Court held in Arizona v. United States that a “[a] principal feature of the [deportation] system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials. . . . Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue [deportation] at all . . . .” Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2499 (2012).
As a result of all of the above (i.e., the INA and its implementing regulations, Supreme Court decisions, and agency memoranda), there have been at least thirty nine (39) instances since 1956 where a president has exercised his executive authority to protect aliens, generally in the interest of simply keeping families together.
So What Happens Now?
Our history is replete with examples of U.S. presidents, in the name of prosecutorial discretion, issuing directives that provided for deferred action (or whatever they may have called it at the time) to non-citizens of the United States, and indeed Judge Hanen, in his written decision, affirmed the executive branch’s right to exercise prosecutorial discretion.
Previous lawsuits against similar executive actions have failed in the past. Indeed a similarly politically motivated lawsuit was thrown out in December 2014 when Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio argued that President Obama’s announcements were unconstitutional. In 2012, the State of Mississippi challenged the legality of DACA in a case similar to the current Texas lawsuit, and that case was dismissed because the judge found the perceived economic hardship the state claimed was purely speculative.
As I have previously argued and substantiated in this blog, studies have shown that deferred action initiatives, apart from being the right thing to do, are economically beneficial to our country. In his decision, Judge Hanen cites the government’s “failure to secure the borders” and then goes on to support the plaintiffs’ position of supposed costs to the states without any evidence whatsoever in the record. The American Immigration Lawyers Association (“AILA”) and others have argued that Judge Hanen disregarded information submitted by the government and AILA as to the widespread economic and social benefits that the expanded DACA and DAPA programs would provide. They’re right.
Again, the Obama Administration has indicated it will appeal, and at the same time seek a stay to the enforcement of Judge Hanen’s order. I am cautiously optimistic that the government will prevail. In the meantime, it’s noteworthy to point out that those who have previously been granted DACA are not at all affected by Judge Hanen’s ruling. This ruling only delays the start of DAPA and the expansion of DACA.
Immigration Reform by Executive Action – What Else Did the President Do?
OK, to close the proverbial loop on President Obama’s administrative “fix” of our “broken immigration system”, here’s a few other things that the President announced on November 20, 2014. For more details on all aspects of this Executive Action, please see my two previous blog posts.
Provisional Waivers. This was a biggie, and just about the day after the President’s announcement, I had someone walk into my office who will benefit under this provision (once implemented). The President has decided to expand an earlier program his administration put into place which provides for “provisional waivers” of the 3- and 10-year unlawful presence bars on the admission of aliens who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence in the United States. Currently, this program only assists the spouses, sons, or daughters of U.S. citizens. Under the President’s proposed expansion, it will now also benefit qualifying relatives of lawful permanent residents (i.e., Green Card holders).
Miscellaneous. The President also announced several other initiatives, not all of which can be neatly categorized I have done in earlier blogs. First, the President announced some personnel reforms involving immigration and customs officers. He also is trying to promote naturalization for eligible Green Card holders by, for example, directing U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to start accepting credit cards for paying naturalization fees, to consider partial waivers of naturalization fees in its next biennial fee study, and to launch a comprehensive media campaign to promote naturalization. He also is establishing an interagency task force on “New Americans” so as “increase meaningful engagement” between immigrants and the communities where they settle. Finally, the President is also establishing an interagency working group to address the interplay of immigration and employment law. I personally think it will be interesting to see what develops out of this last one.
As I have previously said, it seems clear to me that what President Obama announced was very necessary and very welcome, even if the manner in which it did it was controversial (along obviously with what he did). Last week, the House of Representatives passed a funding bill for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that defunded his initiatives. Although the measure passed, interestingly, 26 Republicans voted against Rep. Marsha Blackburn’s amendment which would have defunded the President’s original 2012 Deferred Action Against Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) initiative. This bill is now on to the Senate, where I doubt it will pass, but it certainly create a forum for debate that may very well impact the 2016 presidential elections. Let’s see what happens.
Obama’s Immigration Executive Action: Some Lawful Immigration Changes
So of course the centerpiece of President Obama’s administrative “fix” of our “broken immigration system” are his initiatives to grant “deferred action” to some aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States, and who were brought to the United States as children and raised here. But the President did much more when he announced on November 20, 2014 several other initiatives which affect lawful immigration, and which are supposed to assist our country’s high-skilled businesses and workers. Here’s a brief overview.
1. Immigrant Visa Issuance. The President wants to ensure that all available immigrant visas (basically, “Green Cards”) are used each year, and the President has created a new interagency task force to modernize and streamline the immigrant visa system. Because of delays in processing applications for immigrant visas, some visas going unused each fiscal year. Given the unbelievable backlogs in some of the family- and employment-based immigrant visa categories, this is clearly unacceptable. The President’s action is an attempt to ensure that all immigrant visas available for issuance in a year are used.
2. Optional Practical Training. The President announced that he would expand the duration of any “optional practical training” (commonly known as “OPT”) engaged in by foreign national students who studied science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (commonly known as “STEM” fields) at institutions of higher education in the United States on F-1 nonimmigrant student visas. The President also proposed to expand the degree programs eligible for OPT.
Presently, foreign national students studying in the United States on F-1 nonimmigrant visas may request 12 months of post degree temporary employment, or OPT, in their field of study. In 2008, regulations were promulgated which permitted students in STEM fields to request an additional 17 months of OPT, for a total of 29 months of OPT. However, only students in STEM fields are eligible for this 17 month extension, and these students can participate in OPT for no more than 29 months.
3. Aliens Whose Admission to the United States is in the National Interest. The President proposes to expand the use of the immigrant visa category which allows aliens with advanced degrees or “exceptional ability” to obtain an immigrant visa without a sponsoring employer if their admission to the United States is in the “national interest.”
4. Inventors, Researchers, and Founders of Start-up Enterprises. The President proposes to use the authority granted to the executive branch in the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) to “parole” foreign nationals into the United States when there is a “significant public benefit” to allow some inventors, researchers, and founders of start-up enterprises to enter and lawfully remain in the United States without a visa.
5. L-1B Specialized Knowledge Aliens. For companies who wish to hire foreign nationals as “intra-company transferees” using the L-1B nonimmigrant visa program, the President’s proposal seeks to clarify and standardize the meaning of “specialized knowledge” for purposes of the L-1B visa program. The L-1B nonimmigrant visa allows companies to transfer certain employees who are executives or managers, or have “specialized knowledge” of the company or its processes, to the United States from the company’s foreign operations.
6. I-140 Portability under AC21 §106(c). The President seeks to clarify what is meant by the “same or similar job” for purposes of INA §204(j), which provides that employment-based immigrant visa petitions remain valid when the foreign national employee changes jobs or employers so long as the new job is in the “same or similar occupational classification” as the job for which the original petition was filed.
7. Labor Certification (“PERM”) Modernization. The President seeks to review the Labor Certification program (commonly called “PERM”), whereby the U.S. Department of Labor (“USDOL”) certifies that the issuance of an employment-based immigrant visa will not displace U.S. workers, or adversely affect the wages or working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers. More particularly, the President wants to identify methods for aligning domestic worker recruitment requirements under the PERM regulations with demonstrated occupational shortages and surpluses.
8. Human Trafficking and Crime Victims. The President announced that the USDOL will certify (a) applications for T nonimmigrant visas for foreign nationals who have been victims of human trafficking, as well as (b) applications for U nonimmigrant visas for eligible victims of extortion, forced labor, and fraud in foreign labor contracting that the USDOL detects in the course of its workplace investigations.
The President announced other initiatives too (which I will write about at a later time). As you can see from the above, not everything the President announced was controversial (even though some feel how he went about it was). It seems clear to me, however, that what he announced was very necessary and very welcome (by most, anyway).
Obama’s Executive Action : Expanding Deferred Action Initiatives to Unlawful Aliens
OK, so let’s break it down. Clearly the centerpiece of President Obama’s administrative “fix” of what he has repeatedly described as a “broken immigration system” are his initiatives to grant “deferred action” (essentially, temporary relief from being removed or deported from the United States) to some aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States, and who were brought to the United States as children and raised here. A second group of aliens unlawfully present in the United States who will benefit under the President’s actions are those who have children who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents (“LPR’s”, or “Green Card” holders).
Deferred Acton for Childhood Arrivals
So what are the specifics? In June 2012, President Obama’s then-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano announced a program, commonly known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”), whereby aliens unlawfully present in the United States who had been brought to the United States as children and who met other criteria could receive “deferred action.” In many cases, these individuals also received employment authorization. Eligibility for DACA, however, expressly excluded aliens unlawfully present who were over the age of 31, or who had entered the United States on or after June 15, 2007.
On November 20, 2014, President Obama modified the DACA program by eliminating the age ceiling and making individuals who began residing in the United States before January 1, 2010 eligible. Moreover, the President announced that DACA grants and accompanying employment authorization will, as of November 24, 2014, last three years instead of two. We’re informed that those eligible under the new criteria should be able to apply within 90 days of the President’s announcement.
Deferred Action for Parents of U.S. Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents
Hand-in-hand with the expanded provisions of DACA was the President’s announcement that his administration would also be granting “deferred action” to the parents of U.S. citizens and LPR’s. This initiative is commonly called DAPA. Like those eligible for DACA, some applicants for DAPA will be eligible for employment authorization too.
Specifically, aliens unlawfully present in the United States, and who have children who are either U.S. citizens or LPR’s, will also be eligible for deferred action (and employment authorization) pursuant to the President’s announcement. To be eligible, in general, these aliens must be able to show “continuous residence” in the United States since before January 1, 2010, physical presence in the United States both on the date the initiative was announced (i.e., November 20, 2014) and when they request deferred action, (3) not being an enforcement priority under the administration’s newly announced enforcement priorities, and that they present no other factors that, in the exercise of discretion, would make the grant of deferred action inappropriate.
The Obama Administration estimates that approximately 5 million aliens unlawfully present in the United States could be directly affected by the expanded DACA and new DAPA initiatives. However, the actual number who apply for benefits under either program may be much smaller, depending on outreach, access, cost, and numerous other factors.
So What did President Obama Actually Do?
Immigration reform has arguably become the third rail of politics. Those on the political right will say that the President granted “amnesty” to all these aliens. I suppose whether that’s true depends on what your definition of amnesty is. I personally don’t believe that’s the case. Here’s what I can tell you.
A grant of deferred action is not “legalization” as that term is commonly understood in the world of immigration. Legalization is typically a process whereby aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States acquire legal status, typically as LPR’s. LPR’s can then typically apply for U.S. citizenship after a statutory period of time (and assuming they meet certain conditions). That’s not at all what happened here.
Aliens granted deferred action are generally “lawfully present” in the United States under federal law. That’s it. They may also be eligible for certain benefits, like applying for driver’s license, but by and large, they would not be eligible for public benefits.
Being “lawfully present” in the United States is not the same as being in a “lawful status.” Aliens granted deferred action are not in a lawful status. Thus, a grant of deferred action, in and of itself, does not result in an alien obtaining a Green Card, and as a result, such an individual cannot eventually apply for citizenship. Indeed, aliens granted deferred action could conceivably have their status terminated by Congress in the future.
Of course, I personally hope this will not be the case, but one never knows. The next two years may tell us a lot. Politics is a funny thing.
Immigration Reform by Executive Action: What Did Obama Actually Do?
So, the President finally did it. On November 20, 2014, President Obama announced a series of actions (not executive orders as it turns out) that his administration is taking to “fix” what he has repeatedly described as a “broken immigration system.” These actions involve, among other areas, border security, providing a temporary status (commonly called “deferred action”) for some aliens who are currently unlawfully present in the United States, and future legal immigration. So what did the President actually do? I’m glad you asked.
Border Security. Likely to placate those on the right, and certainly consistent with this Administration’s record level of deportations, the President announced he is implementing a “Southern Border and Approaches Campaign Strategy” which the Administration argues will “fundamentally alter” the way in which it marshals resources to the border. We’re informed that this will involve the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) commissioning of three (3) task forces, consisting of various law enforcement agencies, which will focus on the southern maritime border, the southern land border and West Coast, and investigations to support the other two task forces. The primary objectives of this new strategy is increasing the risk of engaging in or facilitating illegal transnational or cross-border activity, interdicting people who attempt to enter illegally between ports of entry, and preventing the illegal exploitation of legal flows (e.g., alien smuggling at ports of entry).
Aliens Unlawfully Present in the United States. The centerpiece of President Obama’s announcement, and no doubt the most controversial, is to grant deferred action (basically temporary relief from removal) to some aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States (i.e., those who were brought to the United States as children and raised here, or those who have children who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents (“LPR’s”)).
In addition, President Obama expanded a program his administration announced in June 2012, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”). That program allowed aliens who were unlawfully present in the United States, and who had been brought to the United States as children and met other criteria, to also receive deferred action and, in many cases, employment authorization. DACA, as originally proposed, expressly excluded aliens who were unlawfully present aliens and who were over 31 years old, or who had entered the United States on or after June 15, 2007. Under President Obama’s recent action, aliens who are over 31 years old, or entered the United States between June 15, 2007, and January 1, 2010, could receive deferred action. The President’s recent initiative would also extend the duration of grants of deferred action (and work authorization) received by DACA beneficiaries from the current two years, to three years.
As noted above, aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States who have children who are U.S. citizens or LPR’s will also be eligible for deferred action (and employment authorization) provided they can show (1) “continuous residence” in the United States since before January 1, 2010, (2) physical presence in the United States both on the date the initiative was announced (i.e., November 20, 2014) and when they apply for deferred action, (3) not being an enforcement priority under the administration’s newly announced priorities, and (4) they present no other factors that, in the exercise of discretion, makes the grant of deferred action inappropriate. Individuals who are granted deferred action pursuant to the President’s initiatives, or otherwise, are eligible for employment authorization provided they can show “an economic necessity for employment.”
There were other provisions which addressed aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States too, but these are the big ones.
Legal Immigration. The President also announced certain initiatives intended to affect aliens who are lawfully present in the United States, and which was described by the President as supporting high-skilled business and workers. One such provision is to ensure that all immigrant visas (basically “Green Cards”) which are authorized by Congress in a given fiscal year are actually issued.
Yet another initiative that the President announced is expanding the duration of “optional practical training” (“OPT”) available to F-1 nonimmigrant students in the United States studying science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (“STEM”) fields at institutions of higher education in the United States, as well as expanding the actual degree programs that are eligible for OPT.
Again, there were other provisions which the President announced in this category.
I realize the President’s actions are very controversial, and a lot of people are unhappy with them. As I’ve said before, and I’ll say it again, our immigration system is broken and it desperately needs to be fixed. In a perfect world, Congress would pass meaningful, comprehensive and bipartisan legislation, and send it to the President for his signature. That has not happened for way too long. So I suppose this is the next best thing.
Election Afterthoughts and Immigration Reform by Executive Action
I’ve taken some time to digest the 2014 midterm election results, and specifically in terms of what they mean for the prospect of comprehensive immigration reform. At first blush, it doesn’t look great. At second blush too.
Last week, however, the New York Times published (in my opinion) an excellent editorial, making the case why President Obama should go it alone and use his executive authority to give temporary protection to potentially millions of aliens unlawfully present in the United States. I am well aware that this is a hotbed issue, and people have legitimately strong arguments on both sides of it. I think the President should go for it, and it looks like he’s about to, perhaps as early as this week (and we’re informed not later than the end of the year).
To be honest, I have mixed emotions about President Obama. But the reality is, the New York Times is absolutely correct in saying that “[s]ix fruitless years is time enough for anyone to realize that waiting for Congress to help fix immigration is delusional.” It’s actually been longer than six years. President George W. Bush tried for comprehensive immigration reform during his presidency, and that fell apart. Others before him have tried and failed as well.
I’ve made this point before, but it really is worth repeating. Our immigration system is broken. Is it really practical to think that we’re going to deport 11 to 13 million aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States? No. Does it make sense that we educate foreign nationals at some of our best institutions of higher education, and then tell them that they can’t stay here because there’s no visa, either temporary or permanent, that allows them to? No. Our immigration system is broken, and our national leaders, with the input of relevant stakeholders, should discuss, debate and implement comprehensive immigration reform.
Unfortunately, a legislative fix does not appear in the offing. Thus, we’re now hearing (and reading) that President Obama may use his executive power to prevent the removal (commonly known as deportation) of anywhere between 3 and 5 million aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States. The specifics are apparently still being worked out, but I’m hearing that those who are the parents of U.S. citizen children, or the spouses of U.S. citizens, will be allowed to remain in the United States, and even obtain permission to work, indefinitely.
Just so I am clear. These individuals will not be afforded lawful permanent residence (i.e., a Green Card), nor will they be put on a path to citizenship. Only Congress has the ability to make those types of changes (with, of course, the signature of the President).
This is not a perfect solution. These individuals would (potentially) only be receiving a temporary reprieve from deportation. Congress could change the law, or a future president could cancel President Obama’s program. If that were to occur, those who participated in the program would be out in the open and thus exposed to removal. Nevertheless, I think it’s a step in the right direction, and worth the risk for those aliens who would participate in it.
As the New York Times stated in its editorial, “[t]here will surely be intense debate when [President] Obama draws the lines that decide who might qualify for protection. Some simple questions should be his guide: Do the people he could help have strong bonds to the United States? Does deporting them serve the national interest? If it doesn’t, they should have a chance to stay.” I agree.
Back to School, but Congress Still as Unproductive as Ever
I rec
ently took my five year old to his first day of kindergarten. He was pretty excited (and so was I for him). Now that the summer is officially behind us, our summer vacations are but a distant memory, our children are now back to school, and we are back to work.
I’m sure most of you know that our children must be in school no less than 180 days during the school year. I’m sure most of you, like me, work no fewer than 5 days a week (and often more). Do you know how many days Congress has been in session this year? Do you know how many days Congress has actually worked this year?
I remember when I used to work on Capitol Hill. Summertime at the office was fairly quiet as a rule. My boss would spend most of this time back in New York, occasionally coming back to Washington for one thing or another. It was pretty rare. Times have not changed, but our legislators certainly have.
When I worked on the Hill, I was admittedly a geek. I would go sit in the Senate gallery after work and watch bills being debated. Let me set the scene. If you’ve ever watched Congressional proceedings on C-SPAN, you might think that all the Senators or Representatives are intently listening to their colleague debate the merits of a bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. Typically the only people in the Senate or House chambers are the person speaking about a particular bill, a staffer sitting behind that particular legislator, one or two stenographers, a few congressional pages, whoever happens to be sitting in the chair person’s seat, and a few administrative folks who actually work for the Senate or the House. I imagine that if I was working on Capitol Hill today, I might have to find something else to do after work given that no Congress in modern history has passed fewer laws (to date anyway) than this one.
I read an interesting piece on the NBC News website recently that this particular Congress has been the least productive in modern history. Just prior to its August recess, “just 142 public bills [had] become law in this current Congress (2013-2014) – down from the 906 the 80th “Do-Nothing” Congress passed in 1947-48, and the 333 that were enacted during the Newt Gingrich-led 104th Congress of 1995-96.”
After coming back from their summer recess, Congress took care of a few things, and according to a recent article from NBC News, they’re now gone until November! “The U.S. House has been in session for roll call votes a total of 92 days in 2014 – or 35% of the year up until now. (They had “pro forma” sessions – without any legislative business – for an additional 25 days.) … The Senate’s been working slightly less, holding roll call votes on just 87 days this year, with an additional 30 days of “pro forma’ sessions, when most lawmakers aren’t in Washington.”
What about you and I? According to NBC News, “[t]hose of us working a typical 5-day work week, with public holidays, would have been clocking in for a total of somewhere around 181 days during that time.”
Incumbency is still a big plus for a legislator running for re-election, although arguably it’s a little less meaningful these days than it was before. We have important national issues that need our Congress’s attention, not the least of which is … wait, wait for it … Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR). The Los Angeles Times reported recently that although House Speaker John Boehner noticeably left immigration out of a speech made recently about the economy, he acknowledged during questions afterward that he thought that “immigration reform would help our economy.” Duh. So why can’t he get his party’s support in the House to pass meaningful immigration reform?
Instead, we’re left to wonder whether, and if so, when, President Obama will take executive action in lieu of congressionally passed (and supported) CIR. We can debate whether executive action in lieu of legislation is a good idea. Doing nothing, however, is a bad idea.
INSIGHT INTO IMMIGRATION 