DACA, 'Chain Migration' and the Government Shutdown: Quick Updates

Quick Updates in a busy week: DACA, ‘Chain Migration’ and the Government Shutdown

 

With so many things going on in immigration, it is difficult to keep up with developments that might affect all of us.  So here is a very brief review of some of the issues emerging this week:

 

DACA

 If you read our previous blog post, you are aware that a U.S. District Court in California granted an injunction against the President’s effort to terminate the DACA program.  The Court determined that the termination was based upon an erroneous legal presumption that the DACA program was initially unlawful.

This, of course, is only a temporary injunction and the U.S. Department of Justice has already appealed the Decision to the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals – and perhaps seeking an expedited hearing with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Until then, however, the District Court ruling still stands – so based upon the Court’s instructions to USCIS and guidance published by USCIS, this is what you need to know for now:

*             If you have not previously been granted DACA benefits, you are not now entitled to have USCIS process a new DACA Application from you.

*             If you have previously been granted DACA benefits and it expired on or after September 5, 2016, you may file a renewal request.

*             If you have previously been granted DACA benefits and it expired before September 5, 2016, you may not file a renewal request; however, based upon previously existing policy, you may file a new DACA request.

Please check the uscis.gov website for more information.

 

                With the DACA District Court Decision as a backdrop, finding a permanent solution for children brought here by their families without authorization remains elusive, despite an apparent bi-partisan bill designed to grant relief to the same persons benefitting from the DACA program (‘Dreamers’).  There is some discussion by leaders of the Democratic Party that they will withhold support for a Continuing Resolution to keep the U.S. Government operations funded unless the bill includes a provision granting ‘Dreamers’ some type of authorized stay in the U.S.  If the U.S. Government does shut down, see discussion of the potential impact below.

 

 ‘CHAIN MIGRATION’ and ‘MERIT-BASED’ IMMIGRATION

‘Chain Migration’

The President’s refusal to approve a bi-partisan bill to grant relief to ‘Dreamers’ was quite infamously linked to a more troublesome discussion of so-called ‘Chain Migration’ and ‘Merit-based Immigration’.

In case you haven’t heard, the President recently advocated for the termination of Family-based immigration programs to be replaced by immigration programs based upon the ‘merit’ of the immigration applicant.

Much attention has been given to the language he is said to have used in describing Southern Hemisphere countries, such as Haiti and African nations, but that attention is misplaced; the real vulgarity was the underlying message that some human beings have greater or lesser value based upon their place of origin or skin color.  In this bleak context, I cannot help but hear the phrase ‘chain migration’ and associate it with a period of migration during the early centuries of our country’s origin when migration to the U.S. was forced.  This type of thinking, left unchallenged, is what creates an environment such as that which allowed human beings to be forcibly separated from their families and forced into servitude because they were deemed to be of inferior value than others, based upon their place of origin and skin color.

If we are being honest, our country has repeatedly shifted its immigration policies to favor – or disfavor – certain types of people from different places.  Interestingly, the family-based immigration programs currently under siege actually arose from an effort to insure that families from northern/western European nations were bringing in more family members from these same countries.  But the ultimate consequence of those programs, along with the intentional effort to spread American influence more globally through the Diversity Lottery program -  is that America became a more culturally diverse nation where anyone with the desire and initiative to seek a better life had the opportunity to reach those goals.  Eliminating family-based programs does nothing less than extinguish America’s unique position as the ultimate hoped-for destination for people around the world.

‘Merit-Based Immigration’

As for the ‘Merit-based’ immigration system, there has rarely been a more easily-resolved issue than this.

Of course, no one would argue that America shouldn’t want the ‘best and brightest’ to come to the U.S. to help maintain and grow our standing in the world.  The ‘best and brightest’ can come from anywhere, but those who have already had the opportunity to prove their ‘merit’ before they come to the U.S., should be given a greater opportunity to come to America and contribute to our greatness.  There is nothing wrong with the idea of ‘Merit-Based Immigration’

Fortunately, there is already a program that supports ‘Merit-Based Immigration’: it’s called the H-1B visa program.  The H-1B visa is for highly educated, highly-trained and skilled immigrants from around the world.

Unfortunately, the number of H-1B visas has been reduced, over the years, to an artificially-low number of 65,000.  It is now so restricted that nearly 2 out of every 3 H-1B petitions that are filed are returned because the limit on the number of visas is reached within the first 5 days that H-1B visas can be filed on April 1 of each year.  Put another way, nearly 2/3 of the ‘meritorious’ people who want to contribute their skills to the U.S. are refused because there are not enough visas to go around.  Often, they go to other countries to offer their skills instead.   [For more information, see prior blog posts on further discussion of the H-1B visa program.]

The point is, if the President wants to do more to allow the ‘best and brightest’ to come to the U.S., simply increase the number of visas available for the highly-educated, trained and skilled persons seeking to come to the U.S. each year.  It’s an easy fix.

 

THE U.S. GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN

As discussed earlier, the negotiation of ‘DACA-type’ legislation is having an impact on efforts to keep the U.S. government operating.  Actually, not all government functions cease during a ‘government shutdown’ because ‘essential functions’ of the government would continue – to insure our safety and security.  However, there would be some impact on immigration-related functions:

·         USCIS and U.S. Department of State:  Since applicants pay fees for visa petitions and visa applications at U.S. consular posts, most of these operations would continue to function (since they largely depend upon your fees – rather than the U.S. budget - to operate).

 

·         ICE and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection:  These enforcement-based services at ports-of-entry are considered ‘essential’, so these would largely remain open, although some less-significant operations may be curtailed.

 

·         The U.S. Department of Labor neither relies upon fees nor is considered ‘essential’ for these purposes, so their services in support of Labor Certification Applications, PERM, Labor Condition Applications, etc. would be unavailable during a government shutdown.

 

By the time you read this, the shutdown issue may have already been resolved, but since the threat of a government shutdown is only slightly less frequent than ‘Old Faithful’, but just about as predictable, you may want to keep this in mind for the next Continuing Resolution deadline.

 

So that’s where we are on Friday, January 19, 2018…  Tune in next week for more!

 

 

DACA Program Revived by U.S. District Court

The DACA Program Gets Unexpected Reprieve

 

Just when you thought the DACA Program was virtually dead – left to rely only upon it’s unlikely rescue by a dysfunctional Congress – the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a surprise: an injunction ordering the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security to maintain the DACA program in the same manner as it was operating prior to the September 5, 2017 decision to terminate it; (the exceptions being that it is not required to process any new DACA applications and it need not permit Advance Parole).

This is a fascinating development that requires a little explanation to fully understand what it means.

What Just Happened?

The District Court’s Order, shared here: U.S. Dist. Court Case - begins with a very helpful history of Deferred Action that is critical to understanding how the Court arrived at its Opinion.  We recommend reading the Order, but in a very brief summary, the Court points out that DACA derives from discretionary powers that have been recognized for decades of immigration law and implementation.  The Order shows where former Presidents from Eisenhower to Reagan used these discretionary powers to provide relief from deportation of classes of immigrants – even in some cases where there was no specific statutory authority for their actions.

This is important because this Court Decision is inextricably linked to the litigation filed in Texas by a number of states seeking to declare President Obama’s executive action allowing immigration benefits to the parents of U.S. citizen children – (known similarly as ‘DAPA’) – as unconstitutional.  In that case, the Texas Court enjoined the DAPA program from going into effect – along with some additional tweaks to the DACA program. 

But – and this is key – the Texas litigation did not address the constitutionality of the original DACA program instituted by the Obama administration in 2012.

Although the District Court in California provides an insightful discussion of why the original DACA program might be well within the authority of the President of the United States to implement, the point is that no Court had ever ruled that the original DACA program was unconstitutional. 

The criticism that President Obama acted outside of his executive authority is frequently a ‘talking point’ used by those who object to the DACA program, but it is no more than a personal opinion.  It has never been an Opinion from a court of law.  (Remember, the Texas case only addressed the ‘DAPA’ program and a few minor embellishments to the DACA program.)

Thus, when in June of 2017, 10 of the plaintiffs in the Texas case sent a letter to the new U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions demanding that he rescind the DACA program – or else they would amend the Texas Complaint to include a challenge to the original DACA program – the new Attorney General happily complied[1].  He then sent a letter to the acting Secretary of the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security requesting its rescission, which was done the next day.

But it was the manner in which Attorney General Sessions acted that provides the basis for this new Order from the California District Court.

In his Letter rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, Attorney General Sessions cited the ‘illegal’ nature of the DACA program as the basis for terminating the program.  He further concluded that DACA was an ‘unconstitutional exercise of authority by the Executive Branch.’  The problem is, as stated above, this was no more than an opinion of the Attorney General – not a determination by a Court of Law – which is the only branch of the U.S. Government that can make such a determination.  As explained by the California case, whenever an Agency of the Government, (such as the U.S. Dept. of Justice), acts, it cannot do so if it is ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or not in accordance with the law’.

The Administrative Procedures Act grants U.S. District Courts, (such as the one in California), the authority to set aside an act of a government agency if it is ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or not in accordance with the law’.

The California Court stated:  “In sum, the new Administration did not terminate DACA on policy grounds. It terminated DACA over a point of law, a pithy conclusion that the agency had exceeded its statutory and constitutional authority”.  And basically, ‘you can’t do that’; only courts can draw such a conclusion.  The Court also cited tweets from President Trump and other comments to show that the decision to rescind the DACA program was improperly made, or in the words of the District Court: the Dept. of Homeland Security terminated DACA on “a flawed legal premise that the Agency lacked the authority to implement DACA”.

So what did the court actually order to be done?

The Court has essentially re-opened the DACA program to begin accepting applications for DACA renewals.  (This does not allow new DACA applications - the reasoning being that the plaintiffs were affected only by those who previously had DACA benefits – but not by persons who had never before applied for DACA.)

And the Court is serious – requiring USCIS to provide public notice to DACA recipients that they can apply for renewals, ordering USCIS to keep track of all applications it receives and even requiring a report to the Court on the first day of each quarter reflecting how it is processing the DACA renewal applications.

                So What’s Next?

                The U.S. District Court Order is certain to be appealed to the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals by the Government, probably pretty quickly and asking that the Court Order be injoined until it can be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

                Also keep in mind that the U.S. District Court’s order is itself only temporary until a Final Decision on the case can be heard on its merits.

                Finally, one cannot help but think that this Decision would have some impact on any negotiations in Congress that attempt to provide immigration benefits for ‘Dreamers’ – but it would be impossible to say whether it has a positive or negative impact on negotiations.  

Stay tuned…

---

[1] As a matter of explanation – it is the U.S. Department of Justice, (led by the U.S. Attorney General), that prosecutes the removal (‘deportation’) of immigrants from the U.S.

Terminating the H4 EAD?

Terminating the H4 EAD?

 
In February 2015, the Obama administration promulgated a federal regulation permitting certain spouses of foreign employees in H-1B visa status to seek authorization to work in the U.S.

Ordinarily, a spouse or child of a foreign employee in H-1B status is given a ‘derivative’ status known as ‘H-4’ status.  Under most circumstances, someone in H-4 status is not allowed to work in the U.S.   However, under this program, a spouse who is in H-4 status may apply for an Employment Authorization Document – (an ‘EAD’ or ‘work permit’) – if the H-1B spouse is also the beneficiary of an approved I-140 Petition for Alien Worker. 

The I-140 Petition For Alien Worker is the first step in the ‘green card’ process which shows that the foreign employee is eligible for a ‘green card’.  Because of the backlog of visa numbers for natives of some countries such as China and India, some foreign employees may have to wait years before they can take the second step of actually applying for a ‘green card’.  The executive order gave relief to the spouses of these foreign employees who successfully completed the first step while waiting for the second step.  It is typical for a foreign employee who qualifies for an H-1B visa to have a spouse who is also highly educated or skilled, so this program allowed spouses to put their education and skills to good use while waiting for a ‘green card’.

It was widely expected that when Donald Trump took office, he would attempt to eliminate this program.  Recent reports indicate that a proposed new federal regulation has been drafted that would do just that.

An added dimension to this story is the existence of a lawsuit styled Save Jobs USA v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security filed in April 2015 and presently at the D.C. Court of Appeals.  ‘Save Jobs USA’ is a consortium of technology workers who argue that the manner in which the H-4 EAD program was created was improper.  Proceedings in this case have been held in abeyance until December 31, 2017 to give time to the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security (under the new Trump administration) to assess the case.  A ruling may be coming as early as January, so this may be a factor in how/when/if the Trump Administration addresses this program.

In the meantime, foreign employees and their family members who may be eligible for the program should examine whether they are in a position to benefit from these regulations…sooner rather than later.

 

Your HS&D Immigration Team

What is the Diversity Visa?

What is the ‘Diversity Visa’?

Basically, the Diversity Visa ‘Lottery’ is a program that provides an opportunity for individuals from countries that do not have many immigrants in the U.S. to apply for a ‘green card’.

Here is clarification on some of the issues associated with the Diversity Visa Program:

1.       Individuals from only certain countries are eligible to apply for a Diversity Visa.  The U.S. Department of State uses a complicated formula to determine which countries have low admission rates to the U.S. over the preceding 5 years.  Thus, the countries on the list change as the formula is applied each year.  Persons from those countries with the fewest numbers are eligible to participate.

 

2.       It really is a ‘Lottery’.  Persons from the listed countries can apply once in a year to participate in the Lottery, and like any lottery, it is a random selection process that is very difficult to win.  In 2015, there were 14.5 million applications for only 50,000 visas, so the odds of being randomly selected is very remote.

 

3.       There is no guarantee that you get a ‘green card’.  If a person is randomly selected, it does not mean that he or she gets a ‘green card’; it only means that the person can then apply for a ‘green card’.  A person must still meet certain education or work experience criteria to get a ‘green card’.  In addition, the person must, like all other ‘green card’ applicants, go through a background check, meet health and financial criteria and be vetted before going for an in-person interview at the U.S. Embassy in their country to see if the person is admissible into the U.S.  If the person passes the interview, he or she will get an ‘immigrant visa’ in his or her passport, but still must be examined at the U.S. border before he or she can be admitted.  Furthermore, if the person does not use the immigrant visa within one year, it is terminated and he or she will not be admitted.

It is important to recognize that the formal name of that program is the ‘Diversity Visa’ program because that explains its purpose.  Here’s why:

A Very Brief History

U.S. Immigration laws up until the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act operated on a system of quotas – allowing only a certain number of immigrants from each country to enter the United States.  This was preserved in the Act, but modified in subsequent amendments to open America’s borders to insure there was a variety of nations represented in the melting pot of America, (hence the ‘diversity’).  In what was then a mere quaint seed of globalization, our leaders recognized the importance of sharing ‘American Ideals’ with the rest of the world.   

As a consequence of the 1990 Act creating the program, anyone from anywhere in the world has a chance to fulfill his or her dream to come to the United States for a chance at a better life.  In return, the United States benefits from the traditional goal of sharing its values and ideals with persons from around the globe – not to mention the contributions that such motivated persons make to American culture, community and economy.

 

What About The Terrorist Attack in New York?

It has been widely reported that the suspect in the terrorist attack in New York arrived in the U.S. from the small country of Uzbekistan on one of these ‘Diversity Visas’ back in 2010.

The perverse and horrific actions of this individual are inexcusable.  And it is fair to inquire whether there was any inherent flaw in the Diversity Visa program that was somehow exposed by this perpetrator.  Given the random and slim odds that any one individual could win the visa lottery makes it an unlikely strategy for anyone intending to come to the U.S. for the purpose of causing harm; the fact that the suspect evidently has lived in the U.S. attempting to run a business while raising a family since 2010 makes the connection even more tenuous, and with no prior criminal background, it would make it difficult to have foreseen during his visa interview years ago that he might one day decide to inflict his terror on innocent people.  The fact that all but two of the persons killed by him were also immigrants from other countries visiting the U.S. makes his crime particularly sad and ironic.

 

HS&D Immigration Group

What's Next For DACA Recipients?

What’s Next For DACA Recipients?

 

You can be excused if you feel like you have whiplash.  The turmoil and mixed messages that have swirled since the announcement was made terminating the DACA program on September 5^th make it difficult to keep up.

Here’s a quick assessment of where we are – at least as of 1:27 p.m. on September 14, 2017:

                The DACA program is still winding down (as described in our previous post on this Blog).   As the program slowly dies, no new petitions are allowed, but anyone whose existing DACA benefits are set to expire before March 5, 2018, still have until October 5, 2017 to file an application for renewing his or her benefits.  The March 5 deadline is significant because it represents a 6-month invitation to Congress to draft and pass its own legislation to provide immigration benefits to the young adults who benefitted from the DACA program – (also referred to as ‘DREAMERS’).

                Shortly after U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the termination of the program, tweets from President Trump infer that he is still supportive of the beneficiaries of the DACA program, and even went so far as to say that if Congress did not act by March 5^th, he might consider taking some other action that might be beneficial to these persons.

                Then, last night, Democratic leaders meeting with President Trump announced that they had all agreed to support legislation that would give immigration benefits to DREAMERS, and that funding for ‘The Wall’ between the U.S. and Mexico would not be a part of the Bill being negotiated.  Reports indicate that President Trump did not agree to not continue pursuing construction and funding for ‘The Wall’ – just that he would not pursue funding in the same Bill that would give DREAMERS immigration benefits.  (From a practical standpoint, this would increase the likelihood of passage of a ‘DREAM’ Act, since including funding for ‘The Wall’ would prevent Democrats from supporting the Bill.)

                For all of the excitement these developments seem to create, we would caution against getting too optimistic at this stage.  The history here shows that positions on this type of immigration reform have been predictably inconsistent.  Furthermore, we should be reminded that the DACA program was created only after the President and some Congressional leaders supporting a ‘DREAM’ act failed to get a Bill through Congress – which is precisely the same situation we are now in. 

It takes more than a President and some Senators and Representatives wanting to pass legislation.  It takes a majority of Senators and a majority of Representatives to vote for legislation in both houses of Congress that supports giving benefits to immigrants who are not currently in status.

Given recent history, it’s far from a sure bet that they would work together to get such a Bill passed, even if the President supports it.

But to end on a more optimistic note, it does appear that there is a broad measure of support for these young adults and their plight that seems to transcend political parties and ideology.  So stay tuned to see what happens next. 

 

                Your Immigration Team at

               Hunter, Smith & Davis, LLP

DACA is Terminated

Termination of the DACA Program

 

Like the slow progression of a hurricane expected to make landfall, the Trump Administration today finally confirmed what had been anticipated for a number of months:  the ‘rescission’ of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or ‘DACA’, program.

So what does this actually mean?

It could be worse.

Let’s start here: What is (was) DACA?

As referenced above, the ‘D A’ in DACA stands for ‘Deferred Action’.  ‘Deferred Action’ is a legal term that references a longstanding immigration administrative tool that has been in use since the 1970s.  ‘Deferred Action’ simply means that the act of formally removing a person from the U.S. will be deferred for a specific period of time.  From a functional standpoint, it can also be viewed that a prosecutor from the U.S. Dept. of Justice uses his or her discretion to not act to remove a person from the U.S. because of sympathetic factors or in deference to other ‘deportation’ priorities.  This is known as ‘prosecutorial discretion’.

Understanding this helps us clarify what ‘Deferred Action’ does not do.  It does not grant any type of ‘status’ to the individual.  The person is not eligible for a ‘green card’, much less U.S. citizenship – and the person cannot sponsor anyone else for an immigration benefit.  The only thing ‘Deferred Action’ does is temporarily shield the person from an action to remove him or her from the U.S.; in addition, the individual who is granted ‘Deferred Action’ is also permitted to seek work authorization in accordance with Federal Regulations.

On June 15, 2012, then-President Obama ordered the Department of Homeland Security to consider young persons who had already been brought to the U.S. before January 1, 2010 and were at that time under the age of 16, to seek ‘Deferred Action’.  Since it was being used for a specific sector of young people living in the U.S. his program was initiated as ‘Deferred Action’ specifically for ‘Childhood Arrivals’, (or ‘DACA’). 

It is instructive to note that the DACA program was not the creation of a new immigration benefit – (Deferred Action has been around for nearly 40 years) – it was simply identifying a specific segment of society for whom these existing federal regulations would systematically apply.  Each individual, however, would still need to prove eligibility for deferred action on a case-by-case basis by filing a Form I-821D – ‘Application For Consideration of Deferred Action’ – with U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services.  If the applicant met the qualifications and successfully passed a background check, the individual could receive ‘Deferred Action’ for a 2-year period.

In November of 2014, President Obama sought to expand the DACA program to extend the period of Deferred Action from 2 years to 3 years and include a greater number of persons who arrived before the age of 16.  (These persons are often referred to as ‘Dreamers’ – which alludes to an earlier Congressional Bill that offered similar benefits known as “The Dream Act”.)  Several state attorneys general brought suit in a Texas federal court to enjoin the DACA expansion.  Their success against the DACA expansion was solidified when the U.S. Supreme Court deadlocked on a 4-4 vote on whether or not President Obama’s actions exceeded his executive authority as President of the United States.  The original DACA program was not included in the Texas lawsuit – but what seemed to prompt today’s announcement was the threat among several state attorneys general to sue President Trump if he did not terminate the program on the grounds that DACA exceeded President Obama’s executive authority.

Tennessee’s Attorney General, Herb Slatery was initially among 10 attorneys general who threatened to sue President Trump if he did not terminate the program – but appropriately backed-out of the threat in recognition of the “human element” represented by the many DACA recipients who “have outstanding accomplishments and laudable ambitions”– and encouraged Tennessee Senators Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker to support a legislative solution to the issue.  It is hard to avoid noting the ironic argument that the Trump Administration would have had to make: that the President did not have executive authority to act on these types of immigration matters, when numerous and significant changes to our immigration system have been made exclusively by executive order by President Trump since January of this year. 

Interestingly, when President Obama initiated the DACA program, his stated purpose was to create a temporary program until Congress could act to pass legislation to give these same young people actual immigration benefits including legal status, work authorization or even perhaps lawful permanent residency.  Proposed bi-partisan legislation authored by Republican Lindsey Graham and Democrat Richard Durbin seeks to ‘legislate’ these benefits which – if successful, would be a more reliable means to accomplish the same ends.

 

What Does President Trump’s Memorandum Issued This Morning Actually Do?

First – it formally and immediately rescinds President Obama’s Memorandum of June 15, 2012, discussed above.  In other words, the DACA program is immediately terminated.

But there are many logistical issues to consider, so the program will have to ‘wind down’ in an ‘orderly fashion’.  Thus, here are some of the other logistical ramifications of the President’s decision:

Second – USCIS will continue to adjudicate new DACA applications that have already been filed.  If you have not already filed a new DACA application, it’s too late now.

Third – USCIS will continue to adjudicate DACA renewal applications that have already been filed – and – will actually continue to accept DACA applications for renewal up until October 5, 2017 for persons whose current DACA benefits expire before March 5, 2018.

Fourth – the U.S. Department of Homeland Security will not terminate or revoke Deferred Action benefits from those who currently have them.  Of course, once they expire, they will not be renewed.

Fifth – Advance Parole:  if you have been previously approved for advance parole (the permission to travel abroad and then be admitted back into the U.S.), the Department of Homeland Security/Customs & Border Protection – states that it will continue to honor the permission to return to the U.S., but reminds us that it can also revoke or terminate this at any time.  [I think this means ‘travel at your own risk’.]

Furthermore, it will not approve any new applications for advance parole and will close any applications for advance parole that are currently pending.

 The Long-View

So what happens next?

The political calculation appears to be to give Congress a deadline to pass legislation that confers benefits to young people in this similar situation.  There seems to be some momentum for this since the majority of Americans polled seem to support benefits for ‘Dreamers’.  The less optimistic view is that the DACA program was born out of the same predicament: the inability of Congress to pass a law addressing this issue forced President Obama to issue a Memorandum instead.  Is it possible for Republicans and Democrats, Senate and House of Representatives to cooperate to pass legislation that amounts to immigration reform?

I am reminded of the great hope and momentum that emerged from the U.S. Senate in the summer of 2013 when a strong majority of the Senate – both Republicans and Democrats - voted to enact a Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, only to see it completely abandoned by the House of Representatives.  That was our last best hope to help fix our ailing immigration system.

President Trump has now created a new opportunity for our Senators and Congressional Representatives to work together to solve this compelling issue. 

Here’s hoping that history will not be repeated.

 

HS&D Immigration

 

What is The Raise Act? Part 3

The Proposed RAISE Act

Part 3:  Elimination of the ‘Diversity Visa’ Program

On August 2, 2017, President Trump promoted a new Senate Bill drafted by Senators David Perdue of Georgia and Tom Cotton of Arkansas known as the ‘RAISE’ Act.

‘RAISE’ is an acronym for “Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy” Act.

The stated purpose of the Bill is to improve the American economy by limiting the number of immigrants admitted into our country.

Background

As stated in the first Blog installment, we are using the proposed Bill is to ‘raise’ our awareness of the more fundamental underpinnings of America’s unique immigration system.  An analysis of this Bill gives us an opportunity to examine: ‘what would constitute a healthy immigration policy in the U.S.’?  thus, the purpose of this article is to explore what is needed in immigration policy to fit the unique history and present cultural pressures of American society today.

We do this by comparing the provisions of the Bill to the current existing law.

 

1. Elimination of the ‘Diversity Visa’ Program

This third installment of our discussion on the RAISE Act addresses the proposed elimination of a program that is commonly referred to as the ‘Green Card Lottery’.  Most people understand that we have a program that allows foreign nationals who do not otherwise have a way to come to the U.S. to live – an opportunity to seek a ‘green card’.  Applications to enter the lottery are filed around the world each year; 55,000 of those applications are randomly selected to permit the applicant to then formally apply for a ‘green card’.

It is important to recognize that the formal name of that program is actually the ‘Diversity Visa’ program because that explains its purpose.  Here’s why:

History

A very brief and simplified history lesson -  U.S. Immigration laws up until the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act operated on a system of quotas – allowing only a certain number of immigrants from each country to enter the United States.  This was preserved in the Act, but modified in subsequent amendments to open America’s borders to insure there was a variety of nations represented in the melting pot of America, (hence the ‘diversity’).

Keep in mind that in 1952, we were just a few years removed from the end of World War II, the creation of the United Nations, the Cold War was heating up and American Policy was to spread democratic ideals in the world while counterbalancing the influence of the Soviet Union in world events.  In what was then a mere quaint seed of globalization, our leaders recognized the importance of sharing ‘American Ideals’ with the rest of the world.   

From a legislative standpoint, our immigration policy was one tool used to accomplish this goal.  We developed an ‘exchange visitor’ visa (the J-1 visa – that still exists today), to bring persons to the U.S. to study and train here, learn about our system, and then return to their home countries to share these democratic influences.  The ‘Diversity’ visa was another product of this effort.  As Vice President Hubert Humphrey noted in deliberation of the 1952 bill, it was important for America to create alliances and take an influential role in countries around the globe.  The objective was to develop “the respect of people around the world”.

Hence, the Diversity Visa Program.

 

 How it Works

Avoiding a detailed explanation of the complex formulas used by the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to calculate the breakdown of visas available each year, it basically works this way:

The Departments of State and Homeland Security review data for the preceding five (5) year period to determine how many persons from which countries received lawful permanent residency in the United States.  The number of immigrant visas permitting those persons to come to the U.S. are divided among ‘low admission regions’ and ‘high admission regions’.

Then 55,000 ‘diversity visas’ are made available each year to persons living in the ‘low admission regions’.

Persons from these ‘low admission regions’ may apply for one of the ‘diversity visas’ so long as the person can prove either – that she has a high-school diploma or equivalent, or has at least 2 years of work in an occupation that requires at least 2 years of training or experience.

A lottery is then held to select applications for further consideration.  If a person’s application is randomly chosen – (this avoids the history of ‘quotas’ from specific countries) – the person may then apply for a ‘green card’.  Just like anyone else applying for a ‘green card’ in one of the many other pathways to lawful permanent residency, the applicant must still prove that he or she qualifies for admission, (is ‘admissible’).  

As a consequence, anyone from anywhere in the world has a chance to fulfill his or her dream to come to the United States for a chance at a better life.  In return, the United States benefits from the traditional goal of sharing its values and ideals with persons from around the globe – not to mention the contributions that such motivated persons make to American culture, community and economy.

 

The RAISE Act

The RAISE Act proposes to eliminate this program entirely.

 

 

 

 

 

Next:  ‘Reducing the number of Refugees’