Home » Posts tagged 'Immigration'
Tag Archives: Immigration
The midterm elections have come and gone. No one could (or should) disagree, no matter what your political affiliation is, that the politics leading up to and even since the election were and continue to be toxic, at best. Case in point was and is the President’s use of the “caravan” of migrants that trekked across Central America (that he claimed were going to invade our southern border) as the impetus to issue an “asylum ban”.
Specifically, on November 9, 2018, the President issued a proclamation that, in conjunction with a rule promulgated by both the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice, bars any individual from seeking asylum who enters the United States from Mexico between official ports of entry. The proclamation will remain effective for 90 days (and can be extended) or until the establishment of a so-called “safe third country” agreement with Mexico.
Advocates not surprisingly (and in my view appropriately) are up in arms, arguing that the President’s action eliminates fundamental due process protections for asylum seekers. They specifically argue that U.S. law clearly states (and it does) that all persons arriving to the United States, no matter where they enter from, have the right to seek asylum. It is true that not everyone is eligible for asylum, but nevertheless, under current U.S. law, everyone has the right to pursue it no matter whether they seek asylum at a port of entry or otherwise.
Specifically, section 208(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) provides that “any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States … whether or not at a designated port of arrival … may apply for asylum[.]” This seems pretty clear to me.
As a result of the President’s actions, several immigration advocacy organizations sued in U.S. District Court in San Francisco to halt the asylum ban. In a ruling issued on November 19, 2018, U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar temporarily blocked the President’s policy of denying asylum to migrants who cross the southern border into the United States without inspection, saying the policy likely violated federal law on asylum eligibility. Really? No kidding.
Judge Tigar wrote that “[w]hatever the scope of the President’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden.”
The Trump Administration appealed, and just recently, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, also refused to immediately allow the Trump Administration to enforce the ban.
The asylum ban represents yet another effort by the President to turn away those seeking protection under our asylum laws. Since taking office, the Trump Administration has detained more asylum seekers, it created the infamous policy that separates asylum-seeking families in connection with its “zero-tolerance” policy, and former Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued the decision Matter of A-B-, which restricts the ability of domestic and gang violence survivors to obtain asylum.
Writing for the 9th Circuit, Judge Jay Bybee, a nominee of Republican President George W. Bush, stated, “Just as we may not, as we are often reminded, ‘legislate from the bench,’ neither may the Executive legislate from the Oval Office.’
Collectively, all of the President’s measures undermine our country’s longstanding commitment to protect those fleeing violence and persecution. Since its inception, the United States has been a beacon for those pursuing freedom and protection against persecution. The President and Congress can ensure the integrity of our borders while still upholding these fundamental truths. They just need to do it thoughtfully and lawfully.
The midterms are upon us. I don’t need to tell the readers of this blog how I hope it ends up.
I was struck recently by two quotes I saw within moments of each other about the “caravan” of immigrants trekking across Central America that are, according to President Trump, preparing to invade our southern border. On the one hand, there’s former Vice President Biden saying “[t]he press is not the enemy of the people. Immigrants are not animals. My hope and prayer is that all of our leaders will work to lower the temperature in our public dialogue, and I have faith that they will do that.” In contrast, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen recent stated that there is no “intention right now to shoot at people” from the Central American migrant caravan if they attempt to cross the United States border. I would suggest that Secretary Nielsen’s statement is not quite “lower[ing] the temperature in our public dialogue” that Vice President Biden was suggesting.
Days after I read the above quotes, and in stark contrast to the above quotes, I read a comment by Tarek El-Messidi, a Chicago-based activist who helped coordinate a fundraising effort by two Muslim organizations that raised about $200,000.00 to help victims and their families following the shooting massacre at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh. “Putting our religious differences or even your political differences aside, the core of all of us is that we have a shared humanity. … We really wanted to reach out as human beings to help.”
The politicization of our broken immigration system (and yes, it’s very broken and has been for way too long) is brutal to watch. Our political climate is toxic right now and we need more thoughtful approaches to some of the terribleness that we’re seeing (like Mr. El-Messidi’s response) to the massacre that took place in Pittsburgh.
The immigrants stuck in our broken immigration system, whether they are here lawfully or not, are paying a very big price. For example, in April 2018, President Trump implemented a “zero tolerance policy”, which as anyone even barely paying attention to the news knows resulted in the widespread and inhumane separation of parents and children arriving together at the United States southern border. The President’s policy mandates the prosecution for illegal entry of everyone apprehended between ports of entry, including those who are lawfully allowed to seek political asylum in the United States (no matter where they enter).
During the President’s first two years, his administration has also implemented policies that are undermining the independence of our immigration judges and weakening due process in the immigration court system. The changes adopted by the Department of Justice over the last year include steps to impose numerical quotas on immigration judges and attempts to curtail procedural safeguards. Immigration courts play an important role in affording noncitizens an opportunity to present claims for relief and stay in the United States. The administration’s changes threaten the integrity of these courts.
There have been other issues too, including among many others, the Trump administration’s efforts to rescind DACA relief for Dreamers, congressional efforts to curb legal immigration, and of course, who can forget the Travel Ban?
More recently, along with the ridiculous rhetoric in connection with the caravan, are the President’s claims that he will end birthright citizenship by means of Executive Order, vows to hold undocumented immigrants in detention until they could be deported, and to block asylum seekers from claiming asylum if they are caught crossing the border outside of legal ports of entry. Oh, and lest I forget, the President has a plan to send thousands upon thousands of our military personnel to save the country from the “bad hombres” and “Middle Easterners” in the caravan preparing to attack our southern border.
Please, make him stop.
I don’t know who’s in the caravan, but the data (i.e., the facts and not the fake news) does not support any of the President’s statements that these individuals are “bad hombres” or even “Middle Easterners”. More than likely, these individuals are leaving their home countries in search of a better life (i.e., seeking refuge from political violence in Honduras where the caravan originated), just like our ancestors did when they left Europe and arrived on Ellis Island. We welcomed them then. We should do so now.
Recently, in a rambling and pretty much unintelligible speech from the White House, which was as always filled with lies and falsehoods, the President once again politicized the immigration debate. He once again chose politics instead of offering real solutions, when he announced plans to rewrite U.S. asylum law and procedures and to construct tent cities where families and asylum seekers could be detained for years.
Not surprisingly, as with any proposal that the President has offered mere days before the midterms, details of the plan are conspicuously absent, but instead will be forthcoming after the election. Of course they will. Just a little more red meat for his base. Please, make him stop.
 DACA stands for Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
 The President claimed that only 3 percent of asylum seekers show up for immigration court proceedings when the Department of Homeland Security’s own numbers show that the vast majority appear for their scheduled hearing.
On the one hand, we have a President who is married to a naturalized citizen of the United States. To my understanding, Melania Trump was originally an O-1 nonimmigrant in the United States (a temporary visa status reserved for, in her case, a fashion model of extraordinary ability in business) who later used a comparable immigrant category to obtain lawful permanent residence. She then, eventually, applied for naturalization and became a citizen of the United States.
Fast forward, in what can only be described as a case of chain migration (something the President has professed to being opposed to), the President’s wife then petitioned for her own parents to come to the United States as immigrants, as she has the legal right to do under the law. Fast forward one more time, Mrs. Trump’s parents do come to the United States and, after a period of time, they apply for naturalization themselves, something they also have the right to do under the law. These naturalization applications, according to recent news reports, were granted. I work with clients every single day under similar fact patterns.
Juxtapose this with the fact that the President, himself individually and through his minion, Stephen Miller, is actively pursuing a policy to make it harder to become a lawful permanent resident (i.e., a Green Card holder), or for some lawful permanent residents to obtain citizenship. This is on top of all the other ridiculousness we’ve witnessed thus far over the summer, including the forced (and in many instances continued) family separations, actively opposing the continuation of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”), among other acts of stupidity and egregiousness.
How is this so? How can a man who’s own wife (indeed even his own ex-wife too) and who’s own in-laws are immigrants to this country be so callous and cold-hearted to literally an entire class of human beings (i.e., anyone who was not born in the United States but yet wants to permanently reside in the United States)? Can someone explain this to me? Is the President’s family better than all the other aliens who want to become permanent residents of the United States? Or do they simply have more means?
And what about Mr. Miller? It seems that his family too were immigrants to the United States, arriving through Ellis Island from what is now Belarus. It seems that Mr. Miller’s relatives fled anti-Jewish pogroms and forced childhood conscription in the Czar’s army at the beginning of the 20th century. According to news reports, the first decedent of Mr. Miller arrived in the United States knowing no English and with $8.00 in his pocket. He peddled street corners and worked in sweatshops. And by all news accounts, he worked hard and become very successful. That’s a great story.
With that as backdrop, the President, through Mr. Miller, is now pushing to enact a policy that could penalize legal immigrants whose families receive a wide array of public benefits and make it more difficult for them to obtain citizenship. At its core, the President’s proposal would penalize lawful permanent residents if they or their family members (including their U.S. citizen family members) have ever used government benefits (e.g., health care subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, some forms of Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, food stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit). If I was a permanent resident, because one of my sons receives services from the county, I could actually be impacted under this law.
Up until 1996, lawful permanent residents were eligible to receive public benefits on the same terms as U.S. citizens. In 1996, however, Congress passed a welfare reform law that barred permanent residents who resided in the United States for less than five years from participating in any means-tested public benefit programs (e.g., Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Supplemental Security Income, Medicaid/Children’s Health Insurance Program, and food stamps). The 1996 law labeled newly arriving immigrants who might not be able to provide for themselves as “public charges,” making them inadmissible unless they could demonstrate that they were not subject to that provision of the law.
The law still allows for the removal of lawful permanent residents who, within five years of their arrival to the United States, become public charges. That said, administrations prior to the current one have limited the public charge definition in this context to immigrants who use cash welfare programs or long-term institutional care funded by the government. Consequently, very few people have been removed from the United States. All this could change, however, if Mr. Miller gets his way. How so?
The law would redefine the terms “public charge” and “means-tested public benefits” to include a much wider variety of federal programs. Second, the government could remove legal permanent residents for using benefits. Under the President’s proposed policy, lawful permanent residents could be removed for using a wide variety of public benefits, potentially including food and nutrition assistance, federally subsidized health insurance through Medicaid or the Affordable Care Act, and even education benefits. Third, although the law currently allows immigration officials to refuse to admit prospective immigrants to the United States who could become public charges, the new policy, as currently written, could be interpreted to make a high-school degree or better a prerequisite for admission to the United States, or for someone to have a certain amount of assets. (This would obviously not impact the President’s in-laws, but could severely impact low-income or less well-educated immigrants from coming to be with their families). And finally, although also on the books now, the new policy would instruct federal agencies to request reimbursement for benefits used by legal immigrants. (This rarely happens now.)
So, where does that leave us? The haves and have nots? It sure sounds like it. It sure sounds like the President and Mr. Miller are attempting to portray legal immigrants as a drain on our system, somehow taking advantage of people like you and me. This is simply not the case. According to the CATO Institute, “[o]verall, immigrants are less likely to consume welfare benefits and, when they do, they generally consume a lower dollar value of benefits than native-born Americans.”
Mr. Miller’s family is an example of how immigrants can come to the United States, work hard, and become successful. But not everyone’s experience in America will be perfect, and sometimes individuals need to lean on our government for some help. No one should be forced to make a decision between ensuring their legal status in the United States is preserved against making sure their family is healthy and can eat. No one should ever have to make that decision.
Can someone tell me the difference between an “executive order” and a “presidential proclamation”? I don’t think I learned that in law school, and for sure it was not on the bar exam. Frankly, before September 24, 2017, I would likely have used the phrases interchangeably. And yet, as of September 24, 2017, many of my colleagues are wondering about the purported difference.
The definitions of “executive orders” and a “presidential proclamations”, including their differences, is not easy to express as the U.S. Constitution does not contain any provision referring to them. The most widely cited explanation came in 1957 from the House Committee on Government Operations, which explained the difference as follows:
Executive orders and proclamations are directives or actions by the President. When they are founded on the authority of the President derived from the Constitution or statute, they may have the force and effect of law . . . . In the narrower sense Executive orders and proclamations are written documents denoted as such . . . . Executive orders are generally directed to, and govern actions by, Government officials and agencies. They usually affect private individuals only indirectly. Proclamations in most instances affect primarily the activities of private individuals. Since the President has no power or authority over individual citizens and their rights except where he is granted such power and authority by a provision in the Constitution or by statute. The President’s proclamations are not legally binding and are at best hortatory unless based on such grants of authority. The difference between Executive orders and proclamations is more one of form than of substance . . . (Emphasis added.)
So why would the president’s first two efforts at a travel ban be in the form of “executive orders”, and his most recent effort be in the form of a “proclamation”? Frankly, I’m not quite sure, but I suspect that whether the courts find Travel Ban 3.0 to be enforceable, either in part or in total, will turn more on its substance and not by whether it’s a presidential proclamation instead of an executive order.
So, then, what’s the deal with Travel Ban 3.0? The President’s proclamation, entitled “Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public Safety Threats,” was issued by President Trump following a worldwide review of information sharing practices between the U.S. and nearly 200 foreign countries. The purported purpose was to assess whether nationals of each country seeking to enter the United States pose a national security or public safety threat to the United States. As a result of this review, eight (8) countries have been deemed to have inadequate identity management protocols, information sharing practices, and risk factors. They are Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. It was also determined that Iraq did not meet the baseline requirements, but nationals of Iraq will not be subject to an outright ban on travel, but rather will be subject to additional screening measures.
There are exemptions under the President’s proclamation, such as the travel restrictions do not apply to lawful permanent residents (i.e., Green Card holders) of those countries, and foreign nationals who have been granted asylum in the U.S., refugees who have been admitted to the U.S., or individuals who have been granted withholding of removal, advance parole, or protection under the Convention Against Torture. There are other exemptions as well.
There are also waivers available if a foreign national can demonstrate that (a) denying entry to the United States would cause the foreign national undue hardship, (b) entry would not pose a threat to the national security or public safety of the United States, and (c) entry would be in the national interest.
Not surprisingly, the anti-administration forces argue that this is yet another attempt by the President to further his discriminatory and anti-immigrant policies and does nothing to strengthen our national security. I tend to agree.
The new travel ban goes (or went, depending on when you’re reading this) into effect on October 18, 2017, but the ban is effective immediately for anyone whose entry to the U.S. was previously barred by the administration’s prior travel ban (Executive Order 13780 dated March 6, 2017 entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States”) (i.e., nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen who do not have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States).
Also, until October 18, 2017, citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen are exempt from the new travel ban if they have a “bona fide relationship” with a U.S. person or entity. (This is actually an issue in the courts at the moment.)
And finally, unless an exemption does apply or an individual is eligible for a waiver, the restrictions of Travel Ban 3.0 apply to individuals of the eight (8) designated countries who (a) are outside the U.S. on the applicable effective date, (b) do not have a valid visa on the applicable effective date, and (c) do not qualify for a reinstated visa or other travel document that was revoked under the President’s earlier travel ban (Executive Order 13769 dated January 27, 2017 entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States”).
I have written before, and no doubt will do so again, that immigrants and refugees contribute in a positive way to our nation by strengthening our local businesses, communities, and national economy. Travel Ban 3.0 will do little more than simply harm families, negatively impact our business community, and undermine our national values.
 Staff of House Committee on Government Operations, 85th Congress, 1st Session, Executive Orders and Proclamations: A Study of a Use of Presidential Powers (Committee Print 1957).
 Both executive orders and proclamations have the force of law, akin to regulations issued by federal agencies, so they are codified under Title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”), the CFR being the formal collection of all of the rules and regulations issued by the executive branch and the federal agencies. Neither executive orders nor proclamations are legislation, however. Neither require approval from Congress, and Congress cannot overturn them. On the other hand, Congress can pass legislation that can make it difficult, or even impossible, to carry out an executive order or presidential proclamation. Nevertheless, only a sitting President can overturn an executive order or proclamation by issuing another executive order or proclamation to that effect.
On September 5, 2017, the Trump Administration announced that it would be ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) program. As if the 2016 presidential election post-mortem wasn’t bad enough, now this. This change of policy impacts almost 800,000 young people, the so-called Dreamers, who entered the United States before they were 16 years of age, generally through no fault of their own. Dreamers have temporary protection from deportation (to countries where they have had very little contact with in their lives). In many cases, these individuals also received employment authorization.
A little reminder as to what DACA is (and soon to be “was”). In June 2012, former President Obama’s then-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano announced a program, commonly known as DACA, whereby aliens who were 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.” These young people were basically protected, albeit temporarily, from being removed from the United States. They were able to work lawfully, attend school, and basically live their lives without the constant fear of being deported. However, unlike legislation, DACA does not provide a permanent legal status to these young people, and it needs to be renewed every two years.
Now, effective immediately, no new applications for DACA will be accepted. Current DACA beneficiaries whose status will expire before March 5, 2018 are permitted to renew their status for an additional two years if they apply by October 5, 2017. Any person for whom DACA expires as of March 6, 2018 will no longer have deferred action or employment authorization.
So how did the current state of affairs come to be? Well, then candidate Trump repeatedly pledged to end DACA (and to construct a border wall) as part of his campaign platform. Indeed, right after his inauguration, the White House prepared a draft Executive Order (which was leaked to the press) dated January 23, 2017 titled Ending Unconstitutional Executive Amnesties. The Executive Order proposed to rescind the then-proposed DAPA program immediately, which was the subject of a federal court injunction, and to also stop processing new DACA applications. So bad on top of bad.
Back in June, 2017, not seeing any movement on the President’s campaign promise, Texas and nine other states sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions stating that unless the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) agreed to “phase out” the program by rescinding Secretary Napolitano’s memo authorizing DACA and halting approval of any new or renewal DACA applications, they would take legal action to challenge DACA. President Trump caved to their demands.
In this regard, on September 4, 2017, Attorney General Sessions sent a letter to Acting DHS Secretary Elaine Duke stating the DACA was an “unconstitutional exercise of authority by the Executive Branch” and that legal challenges to the program would “likely” result in DACA being deemed unlawful. On September 5, 2017, Acting Secretary Duke issued a memorandum officially rescinding the program.
There’s so many ways I can go with this. For today, let’s focus on Attorney General Sessions’ statement that DACA was an “unconstitutional exercise of authority by the Executive Branch.”
President Obama’s administrative action was, at the time, 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.
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 decisions to provide a discretionary remedy 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. It is this provision, in conjunction with other regulations, that currently confers eligibility for work authorization under DACA.
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.
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. Since his September 5, 2017 announcement ending DACA, President Trump has made positive comments about Dreamers, and now says he will “revisit” the program if Congress does not act. Let’s see if he has the political courage to do so.
This is becoming a terrible annual ritual. That is, April 1 has once again come and gone, a new H-1B filing season was upon us, and on April 7, 2017, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) once again announced that it had reached the congressionally mandated H-1B cap for Fiscal Year 2018. So the H-1B filing season, after only five (5) days (because USCIS did not start accepting petitions until Monday, April 3, 2017), is over for employers who are not eligible to file cap-exempt petitions.
The H-1B program was created so that employers can fill specialty occupation positions in their companies on a temporary basis. These are positions that typically require a Bachelor’s Degree for entry into the field. Look around today’s Capital Region, or Tech Valley as it has come to be known. These positions are vital to local employers, allowing them to be more competitive, increase growth, and yes, even create jobs for U.S. workers here.
Unfortunately, employers are being stymied by these ridiculous artificial limits which were established when I wasn’t even practicing law! And, as USCIS has done in prior years when it received well over 200,000 petitions for these coveted H-1B visas, USCIS randomly selects petitions to determine those that will have a chance at the 85,000 visas available. (Imagine telling your clients, after they’ve paid you your fees for your professional services, that a “lottery” will dictate whether their petition will be selected.)
Benjamin Johnson, Executive Director of the American Immigration Lawyer’s Association (“AILA”) was recently quoted as saying the following:
“With unemployment below 5% and an economy hungry for skilled, educated workers, why are we hampered by the arbitrary limits on this program? Instead of a lottery to funnel only 85,000 of the petitions through the process, this entire operation should be driven by market demand so that the program meets the legitimate needs of our country. Each year that we limit these visas with an artificial cap, we stifle economic growth and all of us lose out. It is an irrational system. Our immigration laws were written more than a generation ago, when Google and Amazon weren’t household names, before Twitter, Facebook, and social media itself existed. Every year that goes by without action on this and other necessary legal immigration reforms means countless opportunities lost.”
I could not agree more. The simple fact is that U.S. employers are not able to find enough, and in some cases any, highly skilled workers to fill essential positions in their businesses. There are not enough U.S. workers with advanced skills in science, technology, engineering and mathematical occupations (i.e., STEM fields) to perform the work that many high-tech companies need. Indeed, this shortage of skilled labor has forced many companies to out-source their operations abroad, something I see clients of mine struggling with every day.
I think that the arguments as to why we need to limit the amount of H-1B’s (e.g., to protect U.S. workers, wages, etc.) are generally without merit (there are some companies that endeavor to abuse the program, but in my opinion they are outliers), and the current regulations implementing the H-1B worker program protect U.S. workers, wages and so on. 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.
For example, between 1990 and 2010, the increase in STEM workers in the United States under the H-1B program were associated with a significant increase in wages for college-educated U.S. born workers in 219 cities in the United States. 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.
What about arguments that the H-1B worker program negatively affects employment rates? Not true. 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, compared to, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the overall national unemployment rate. This means that the demand for labor 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? Again, not true. 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. 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.
There are exemptions to the H-1B cap that some employers are eligible for (e.g., institutions of higher education, related or affiliated non-profit entities, nonprofit research organizations, or governmental research organizations), and it’s great 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.
 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).
 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).
 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.
 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.
Two years ago, Coca-Cola’s 60 second Super Bowl advertisement featuring people singing a multilingual version of “America the Beautiful” sparked a national discussion of immigration and diversity. (Click here to read my comments in response to the bigotry that followed that ad. ) Is it any surprise, given the moment of history we’re living in, that Coca-Cola decided to dust it off for Super Bowl LI and run it again?
And they weren’t the only ones who ran a political advertisement in the Super Bowl. Airbnb, the community marketplace for people to list, discover, and book accommodations around the world, ran an advertisement that promoted its view of an open, multicultural world, reflecting its commitment to housing refugees. “We believe no matter who you are, where you’re from, who you love, or who you worship, we all belong. The world is more beautiful the more you accept.” A hashtag at the end of it read #WeAccept, and it went viral on social media by halftime of the game.
84 Lumber, a Pittsburgh-based national building supply chain, ran an advertisement that was so controversial that Fox wouldn’t air the complete version of it. (It’s available here and worth a look.) It featured a Spanish-speaking mother and daughter making a grueling trek across Mexico in search of a better life. Apparently the depiction of the mother and daughter confronting a border wall between the United States and Mexico was “too controversial.”
Budweiser’s Super Bowl advertisement featured the journey that Adolphus Busch made from Germany to St. Louis in the 1800’s and the discrimination he overcame on his way to success. Unbelievably, the hashtag #BoycottBudweiser trended earlier in the game (the advertisement had been running for days before the game). Later on, however, that same hashtag was being used by others to defend Budweiser and mock the boycotters.
And then there was Audi. Audi’s advertisement advocated equal pay for women. Narrated by a father asking questions about what to tell his young daughter one day as she competed in a go-cart race, he said, “Do I tell her that despite her education, her drive, her skills, her intelligence, she will automatically be valued as less than every man she ever meets?” The young girl won the race, and her father remarked that maybe he will be able to “tell her something different.” The advertisement ends with Audi of America’s statement that it is “committed to equal pay for equal work.”
We are living in an unprecedented moment in history. The Super Bowl is without question the biggest day of the year for advertisers. And in this moment of history, companies did not shy away from calling out President Trump and his politics (even if none specifically used his name), offering up loud rebukes against xenophobia and sexism.
Let me remind everyone that we are a nation born of immigrants. The President’s election, and his recent actions on immigration and other issues, has divided our country. Advertisers paid $5 million for 30 seconds of air time to reach more than 110 million viewers. I think they were very successful. Let’s hope their messages were loud and clear to Washington.