Immigration

October 27, 2022 0

Decades-long waits for green card if you were born in the “wrong” country

                                                                                                                  (Source) The Immigration and Nationality Act (“the Act”) (8 U.S.C. §1152) promulgated that no country could receive more than 7% of the total number of green cards under each employment-based preference visa categories in a fiscal year, in addition to providing for an annual numerical worldwide limitation on permanent residency issuance. The original intent of the provision was to ensure a diverse immigrant pool. However, the per-country cap generated decades-long backlogs for immigrants born in countries like China and India. Legislation aiming to eliminate the per-country cap has been repeatedly introduced to Congress. The 116th Congress passed Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act in both chambers but could not reconcile the two chambers’ bills before the expiration of the 116th Congress. A similar EAGLE Act has now been introduced to the 117th Congress and cleared the House Judiciary committee. In this article, I will only explore [read more]
April 19, 2022 0

We Need an Afghan Adjustment Act

(Source) This article originally appeared in the New York Daily News on Apr 9, 2022. Since the fall of the Afghan government in August 2021, the United States’ treatment of our Afghan allies has fallen short of anything humane. Now, while the world’s attention justifiably turns to the devastation in Ukraine, the recent more favorable treatment of Ukrainian refugees highlights how the United States has unacceptably failed our Afghan allies. During the U.S. military’s withdrawal from Afghanistan and the Taliban takeover, the U.S. military evacuated around 123,000 people from Afghanistan. The U.S. military brought 83,000 of these Afghans into the United States. Others were taken to third countries. These evacuated individuals were our allies in Afghanistan. They supported and joined the U.S. military’s work in the country and worked for American NGOs. They stood with us against the Taliban, putting their lives at risk. Before evacuating these allies, the U.S. vetted them and identified them as being at risk of harm from the Taliban. While those evacuated from Afghanistan were lucky to make it out of the country alive, this sudden departure from their homeland was nonetheless a traumatic experience. Many fled without getting to say goodbye to their loved [read more]
December 8, 2021 0

Free From Charge: Revamping the Public Charge Rule

(Source) The Biden administration must confront a plethora of immigration issues following the immense number of restrictions the Trump administration placed on immigrant applicants. These “land mines” of Trump-era anti-immigrant policies are rooted deep- “buried under layer after layer of bureaucratic actions and then [can] essentially devastate the system in untold ways that aren’t discovered until policies are applied in particular cases.” One land mine worth addressing is the controversial “Public Charge” Rule.  In 1882, Congress first implemented the “Public Charge” Rule as a relatively vague statute that allowed the U.S. government to deny a visa to anyone who “is likely at any time to become a public charge.” The Public Charge Rule was designed to prevent noncitizens from entering and remaining in the country if they are likely to require some undesignated degree of public assistance. Laws frequently identify self-sufficiency of noncitizen applicants as a compelling government interest and cite it as justification for this exclusion rule. This Rule is also meant to remove the incentive for illegal immigration provided by the availability of public benefits. However, the 1882 federal law did not provide a set definition of what a “public charge” is, nor did it provide any specific guidelines to [read more]
October 31, 2020 0

Oppression at Home, Rejection Abroad: How U.S. Immigration Law Disappoints Cuba’s White Coat Army

(Source) Introduction Since February of 2020, more than 200,000 people in the United States alone have died with COVID-19. Experts estimate over a million people have died with the virus worldwide and according to the World Health Organization, one in ten worldwide may have contracted the virus at some point. As the U.S. and the world struggle to recover from the catastrophic effects of the coronavirus pandemic, health care workers have earned a newfound sense of respect and appreciation, both at home and abroad. Against the backdrop of this international crisis, and to many a surprise, one country in particular is gaining newfound recognition for its subsidization and dissemination of talented health care professionals: The Republic of Cuba. While Cuba’s exportation of a seemingly impressive number of doctors and nurses is hardly news to the international community, the recent deployment of these workers is garnering significant attention and, inevitably, raising some salient questions. Specifically, is Cuba’s commissioning of health care professionals a master class in international charity? Or has something more wicked this way come? Unfortunately—and increasingly as seems to be the case in developments involving the Republic of Cuba—when it comes to the Pearl of the Antilles, the devil [read more]
August 24, 2020 0

The Public Charge and the Pandemic: What Happens When the Dust Settles?

(Source) On July 29th, the Southern District of New York (“Southern District”) enjoined the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) from enforcing, applying, or implementing the Trump Administration’s new public charge rule from taking effect during the COVID-19 national health emergency. Responding to the injunction, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) stated that the 1999 public charge guidance will control the admissibility of immigrants on public charge grounds until the national health emergency ends. The concept of the public charge has been a part of the American immigration system since the late 1800s. It takes its origins from “poor laws,” which were designed to exclude foreign immigrants who would require public assistance. The modern understanding of what constitutes a public charge was formalized in 1999 to include immigrants who are “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance, or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.” Traditionally, this meant that immigrants could not take advantage of monetizable programs, such as welfare. However, in 2019 the Trump Administration revised the public charge rule and expanded the rule’s impact by barring programs permitted by the 1999 guidance. This lowered the [read more]
May 29, 2020 0

Separating Federal Immigration Enforcement from Community-Oriented Policing: How the COPS Grant Program Misses the Mark

(Source) Combating illegal immigration has become a cornerstone of the Trump administration’s agenda. President Trump has frequently touted the allegedly threatening impact of immigration on crime and the economy to justify ramping up federal immigration enforcement efforts. However, many jurisdictions have adopted an implicit policy of obstructing such efforts by refusing to disclose information on suspected undocumented or illegal immigrants. These “sanctuary cities” have been embroiled in numerous legal battles with the Trump administration. Cases involving the denial of federal grant funding to sanctuary cities have proven especially controversial and continue to play out today. The COPS Grant Program Created under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (“the Act”) and under the supervision of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program aims to “advance community policing in all jurisdictions across the United States” by awarding grants to state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies. Congress initially funded the program to hire more street-level law enforcement officers, also known as beat cops, during the Clinton administration. The COPS Program issues competitive grants, as opposed to formula grants, meaning that state, local, and tribal governments must apply for access to a limited pool [read more]
October 1, 2017 0

Constitutionality of DACA Rescission

On September 5, the current administration rescinded the guarantee to many young people currently in America illegally that the government would not interfere with their work or studies. This program, known as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (or DACA) was designed to allow young undocumented immigrants, brought to America illegally, work permits and safety from deportation. This group of young people, colloquially known as “Dreamers,” is a group of high-functioning, well-educated young men and women that are arguably aiding the United States economy. This rescission is extremely unpopular, with 73 percent of Americans wanting legislation that protects Dreamers from deportation. President Trump has come out in support of protecting the group, and claims that he hopes “Congress will be able to help them out and do it properly.” So if the president and the American people are in support of DACA, why get rid of it? Part of that answer stems from a 2015 case, Texas v. United States, in which 26 states challenged the lawfulness of Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (“DAPA”) and the expansion of DACA. DAPA was similar to DACA, but it applied to the parents of children with permanent legal [read more]
March 28, 2017 0

States Push Back Against Peaceful Protests (Part One)

In the wake of President Trump’s executive order banning immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries, millions of protestors took to the streets across the country to voice their concerns and grievances involving Trump’s immigration stance. While Muslims and Muslim support groups are encouraged by and grateful for the support provided by protestors across the country, Republican lawmakers are pushing legislation that would criminalize nonviolent protest. For example, in Iowa, lawmakers have introduced a bill that would make blocking traffic a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. In Minnesota, lawmakers proposed an anti-protest bill that would dramatically stiffen fines for freeway protests and would allow prosecutors to seek up to a full year of jail time for protestors blocking a highway. In Indiana, legislators have introduced a bill that would allow police to remove protestors blocking traffic using “any means necessary.” These are not the only states considering anti-protest bills. Others include: Washington, Michigan, North Dakota, Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, and Missouri. These various anti-protest bills have caught the attention of the nation’s most active civil liberties guardians, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the First Amendment Coalition (FAC). Lee Rowland, a senior attorney at the ACLU, and [read more]
February 8, 2017 0

Trump’s Muslim Immigration Ban – Concerning but Likely Constitutional

President Trump has recently signed an executive order, titled “Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals,” that restricts visits and immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries: Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, and Iran. Trump’s executive order has sparked widespread protest and backlash from Muslim support groups, and has routinely been characterized as “racist.” Some critics of the executive order argue that the immigration ban targeting solely Muslim-majority countries is unconstitutional. Current United States law and court cases, however, grant the President broad authority to restrict immigration from particular countries. In the decades following the ratification of the Constitution, the Supreme Court determined that the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch had “plenary power”—absolute power— over issues concerning immigration. Since then, Congress has given away much of its shared plenary power over immigration to the Executive Branch. For example, Congress delegated to the Executive Branch the power to determine whether foreigners should be granted temporary protected status, whether a person is permitted to work in the United States, whether a person’s deportation should be deferred, and whether to grant a person permission to be in the United States when the person does not qualify for a visa. Despite the [read more]

Copyright © 2024 | MH Purity lite WordPress Theme by MH Themes