Archive for the 'Immigration' Category

Immigration: Understanding the United States’ New Policies

Under the Obama administration, enforcing immigration policies meant focusing on dangerous criminals and keeping families together, not a hard-lined approach that would deport every undocumented immigrant.  Times have changed, though, and Trump’s executive orders, titled Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements and Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, changes the enforcement practices of our nations’ immigration laws.

Veiled Rule Really Includes All Undocumented Immigrants

immigrationAlthough Obama took a more progressive approach during his first term, deportations dropped during his second term and priority was given to dangerous criminals—not to those immigrants whose only violation was being in the country illegally.  In 2014, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) created the Priority Enforcement Program, which focused on deporting undocumented immigrants that posed threats to public safety, national security, and border security.  This program within the DHS has now been terminated because under Trump’s executive order undocumented immigrants that:

  • have been convicted or charged of any criminal offense,
  • have committed a chargeable criminal offense,
  • have engaged in fraud (think visa fraud) or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or application before a governmental agency,
  • have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits,
  • are subject to final order of removal, but have not complied with their legal obligation to depart the U.S., or
  • in the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security are to be given priority for deportation.

Let’s be clear here.  The policy includes virtually every person in the country that is here illegally.  Under this new policy, any unauthorized immigrant that has committed a chargeable criminal offense is to be deported.  Crossing the border illegally is in and of itself a criminal offense, so all those campaign promises that he only wanted to deport criminals wasn’t entirely true.  The only other way an immigrant could be here illegally is by overstaying a visa.

Department of Homeland Security Memos Shifts Policies Further

Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, John Kelly, released a set of implementation memos that give guidelines on how to enforce Trump’s policies under his executive orders.  According to the DHS, these memos are “designed to answer some frequently asked questions about how the Department will operationally implement the guidance provided by the president’s order”.

In short, the memos expedite deportation, tighten immigration laws for asylum seekers and unaccompanied minors entering the country, could send immigrants awaiting immigration proceedings in the United States back to Mexico, seek to publicize crimes by undocumented immigrants, build new detention facilities, strip immigrants of privacy protections, and enlist local police officers to enforce immigration policies.

Here’s a closer look at some of the changes.

  • Although the memos do list specifics about who is to be given priority for deportation in accordance with Trump’s executive order, the memos direct that the DHS will no longer exempt classes or categories of removable aliens. This is contrary to the policies under Obama, who worked to keep illegal immigrants with strong ties to their communities and this country, including those with citizen children, here in the United States.
  • Establishes the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) Office. This one allows the VOICE office to release information about the offender to victims and their families.  Further, it terminates any and all resources used to advocate on behalf of illegal aliens; all resources are reallocated to the VOICE office.
  • Directs establishment of regulations to collect civil fines and penalties from illegal aliens.
  • Strips Privacy Act protections from any person that is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
  • Expanded expedited removal processes for undocumented immigrants that haven’t been here long. Immigration law says undocumented adults captured within 2 years of entering the U.S. can be removed without a hearing.  In the past, DHS policy limited this policy to those captured within 14 days of entering the country, but, even though the memo doesn’t give a specific change of time frame, this will likely no longer be tolerated based on the essence of the memos.
  • Criminalizes those who help unaccompanied children. Any individual who “facilitates the illegal smuggling or trafficking of an alien child into the United States” is subject to deportation and/or prosecution.
  • For those that entered the country through a neighboring territory, the memos authorize their return to that territory where they will wait for the outcome of their removal proceedings. This is true even if that territory isn’t their country of origin.

Although some of the information contained in the memos references already existing laws, the message is clear—violating immigration laws will no longer be tolerated.  Under these policies, the government no long considers violating immigration laws a secondary offense and the memos direct Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hire 10,000 additional officers and agents to implement these new policy changes.

What our clients think

At LegalMatch, we value our client’s opinion and make it a point to address their concerns. You can refer to our reviews page if you want to know what our clients have to say about us.

Travel Ban 2.0: Trump’s Second Attempt to Ban Immigration

The initial executive order out of President Trump’s White House regarding limiting immigration to the U.S, widely known as the “Muslim Ban,” was an unmitigated disaster.  Rolled out overnight, the order caused chaos across the country as agencies tried to put the order’s new rule into force.  It also drew immediate legal challenges from numerous states, all challenging the order-in whole or in part-as unconstitutional.  Several of these legal challenges succeeded; most notably a challenge out of the state of Washington which culminated in a preliminary injunction–an order preventing the “Muslim Ban” from taking effect whatsoever until the Washington case is fully litigated.  In the face of court order saying that the order was most likely unconstitutional, and the fallout of the original implementation of the order, President Trump did something we perhaps should all have expected-he signed and put into force a nearly identical order.  On Monday, March 6th, President Trump issued an executive order titled “Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.”

In the past we’ve already covered the effects of the ban, the constitutional problems intrinsic to the ban, the many lawsuits brought after the ban was passed, and the injunction which ultimately put an end to it.  So with that in mind, you’ve got to know that we’ve got some thoughts about Trump’s second iteration of the ban.  So without further ado, lets dive into it–the changes between this new order and the original order courts ruled to be likely unconstitutional, the chances that this order will stand, and the legal challenges the order already faces.

How is This Order Different From the One Courts Already Stopped?

travel banThe short answer, it isn’t very different.  The order still targets specific Muslim majority countries, barring immigration from those countries for 90 days. It also still cuts the number of refugees allowed to be admitted to the U.S. per year by more than half.  However, with this being said, there are some important changes in effect from the initial order–mostly designed to make the order appear more kosher to the courts.

The new version of the order has removed the indefinite ban on the U.S. taking in any refugees out of Syria.  Instead, the order includes a 120-day freeze on taking in those refugees.  However, the order also includes the ability to renew the ban for a longer period of time upon review.  It also doesn’t include any limits on the number of times the ban can be renewed, so in effect the ban could very well be indefinite.

The order also has removed Iraq from the original list of countries slapped with a 90-day immigration ban, leaving only the other 6 original countries.  The reason for this change is a request from the Defense Secretary, fearing that such a ban would injure the U.S.’ ongoing efforts to fight ISIS in Iraq.  The order doesn’t take a ban on immigration out of Iraq off the table though, threatening to put the country back on the list if Iraq’s  leaders don’t increase their amount of intelligence they share with the U.S.

The new crack at the ban also has eliminated language specifically offering preferential immigration status to “persecuted religious minorities.”  This was one of the most widely criticized elements of the order, both by the public and in legal challenges to the order.  The thought being that the provision was designed to favor other religious groups over Muslims.

As opposed to the frenetic same-day introduction of the last immigration ban, the Trump administration has allowed for a slower implementation and time to prepare for implementation.  The ban only goes into effect ten days after its signing–March 16.

The order has a number of other changes.  The order includes specific details about why the six countries hit with the 90-day ban were selected; presumably to strengthen the order against the many legal challenges saying the order was targeting countries based on their Muslim majority.  The order focuses its details sections on the statistics regarding terrorism for each country selected.  The order also no longer affects current visa holders or refugees already granted asylum.

So you’ve likely noticed that these changes are, intentionally, targeted at trying to make the order stand up to the scrutiny of the courts.  In order to determine whether it has succeeded, let’s look at why the last order got hit with an injunction.

Why Was the Last Order Blocked?

Since we’ve covered this issue in previous articles, we’ll keep the discussion of why the last order couldn’t pass constitutional muster on the short side.

A preliminary injunction is granted where the party seeking it can show that they are likely to succeed in their arguments, there would be irreparable harm if the thing they seek to stop isn’t stopped immediately, there isn’t a public interest against granting an injunction, and the party seeking the injunction will be more harmed by what they seek to stop than the party you’re bringing the injunction against will be harmed by the injunction itself.  In the case brought by Washington, the court ruled that they were likely to succeed in their arguments that the immigration ban unconstitutionally singled out targets based on religion or national origin–in other words the order discriminated likely discriminated against protected classes.

Will the New Order Stand Up in Court?

The White House certainly believes its changes, although extremely minor in practice, are enough to allow the order to pass muster.  In fact, the Department of Justice has already filed briefs saying that the revisions have rendered all the legal cases regarding the first order moot.  In other words, the injunction has no further effect and the new order must be challenged or not on its own merits.

However, as of March 9th, Washington state lawyers have taken the stance that the changes are so minor as to amount to essentially putting lipstick on a pig.  They argue that the prejudicial purpose behind the order remains and its most offensive portions are essentially untouched.  For this reason, they’ve asked the federal judge who placed the preliminary injunction on the original order to expand his order to cover the “Muslim Ban 2.0.”  A similar attempt to challenge the ban has been brought by Minnesota and Hawaii.  The Attorney Generals for Massachusetts, New York, and Oregon have all made it known that they intend to join in on the challenges brought by Hawaii, Minnesota and Washington.

So will the new and improved “Muslim Ban” stand up?  We’ll have to see how the courts rule.  However, the order has changed very little in actual effect.  It still targets specific nationalities in almost exactly the same manner and it still exclusively targets Muslim majority countries.  The same reasons it was likely unconstitutional before are all still there.  Even if the order itself has removed some of the language making obvious attempts to target Muslims and provided an alternate explanation, Trump’s own statements on immigration and the previous order still can be used as evidence of the discriminatory purpose to the new order.

Nothing in law is ever truly certain, but the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.  The new ban is very similar to the previous order, it seems unlikely that it will pass constitutional muster with such minimal changes.

What our clients think

At LegalMatch, we value our client’s opinion and make it a point to address their concerns. You can refer to our reviews page if you want to know what our clients have to say about us.

Immigration: Why Did Border Patrol Ask for ID on a Domestic Flight?

A recent domestic flight was boarded by immigration officers who asked to see passengers’ identification. The flight from San Francisco to New York was met by two U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) agents who were conducting a search at the request of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. According to CBP, an immigrant who had legal immigration documents received a deportation order after multiple criminal convictions for domestic assault, driving while impaired, and violating a protective order. The agents were in search of this unidentified immigrant, but did not find the person on the flight.

Was this Action Typical?

According to the New York Civil Liberties Union, law enforcement officials sometimes board airplanes to apprehend a suspect or fugitive. They occasionally may pull someone off a flight or officers will enter a plane to make an arrest. However, it is highly unusual for officials to do what they did here – wait outside an arriving plane to ask for identification from each passenger.

ImmigrationWhy Did CBP Ask Passengers for ID?

During campaign season, President Trump promised his supporters he would deport “bad dudes” or “bad hombres”, a term he coined for immigrants convicted of crimes. It appears he’s trying to make good on his promise.

Asking for identification from each passenger was without a doubt atypical for CBP and certainly not protocol. Due to this unusual action by CBP, people are starting to question whether it was connected to President Trump’s new immigration guidelines. Under the Obama administration, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) prioritized finding and deporting undocumented immigrants with prior criminal convictions. The Trump administration has taken this one step further. Under the Trump administration, the Department of Homeland Security issued guidelines to ICE and CBP empowering federal agents to detain, target and deport any immigrant currently in the United States without documentation. This includes immigrants who have no past criminal convictions.

What are the Immigration Laws in the U.S.?

The Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”) is the body of law that governs current immigration policy.

There are essentially three ways to legally immigrate to the United States. First, an immediate family relative can sponsor anyone seeking immigration visas so long as the immigrant is at least 21 years old and can demonstrate either the sponsor or the immigrant has the financial means to support him or herself in the United States. Second, individuals who leave their home country to avoid persecution can obtain refugee status through the U.S. Embassy, thereby obtaining refugee and asylum status. Third, lawful permanent residency allows for a foreign national to work and live lawfully in the U.S. This is known as obtaining an employment or work visa.

Are Immigrants a Problem in the U.S.?

Recent statistics show that there are a record 61 million immigrants and their American-born children who live in the United States. Given the limited ability for most immigrants to immigrate to America legally, there are an estimated 15.7 million who live here illegally. These people are known as undocumented (or illegal) immigrants, and they are foreign people who have no legal right to remain in the U.S.

As with any group of people, some immigrants are criminals, but it is dangerous to assume all immigrants are “bad dudes.” Not only is it an unsubstantiated stereotype, it also unfairly categorizes an entire group of people based purely on their immigration status. The fact that this stereotype is perpetuated by the President of the United States, the most powerful position in the world, encourages narrow-minded thinking.

President Trump’s new stricter guidelines that encourage targeting, detaining and deporting immigrants are consistent with his campaign and presidency which seem to focus on dividing our nation instead of uniting it.

Immigration Ban 101: Understanding Trump’s Executive Order

Trump’s executive order on immigration has created mass confusion, waves of legal battles, and incited outrage across the nation.  In the chaos that ensued after the executive order dropped, legal professionals began filing lawsuits that eventually led to a temporary suspension of the ban. Although the initial decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is foretelling the executive order would ultimately be held unconstitutional, let’s take a closer look at the immigration policies Trump wants to implement.

Immigration Ban

Who’s Covered?

  • The order suspended new refugee admissions for 120 days, which suggests new vetting procedures were on the way. Although Trump says he wants a heavier regulated process, the U.S. refugee admissions system is already strict.  Refugees typically apply through the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which then goes through several databases, including the State Department, the National Counterterrorism Center/FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Interpol, Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Department of Defense.  Currently, it can take anywhere from 18 to 24 months for the vetting process.
  • The order suspended the Syrian refugee system Last year, Trump’s Vice President, Mike Pence, tried to stop resettlement of Syrian refuges into the State of Indiana, but was blocked by an appeals court who ruled his attempt as “nightmare speculation”.  The order also requests review of a state’s right to accept or deny refugees for resettlement in their state, which is no doubt a nod to Pence.
  • The order bans entry into the U.S. from seven majority-Muslim countries for 90 days. Those countries include Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, but more countries could be added at any point under the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security.  The ban was unclear as to whether the restriction included legal U.S. residents, which created chaos for individuals that were traveling when the order hit.  The Department of Homeland Security later clarified that some legal residents that didn’t pose a legal threat would be allowed in.  I’m not sure you can call that much of a clarification, though, as it’s still vague.
  • The ban included denial of entry of dual-nationals. This means even if you hold a passport from another country, but also one from one of the 7 above-listed countries, you could be banned from entering the U.S.
  • Prioritize refugees based on religion. While Trump claims it isn’t a ban on Muslims, there is a small provision within the executive order that says priority should be given to those of a minority religion, implying those religions other than Muslim will be given preference.
  • Lower the total number of refugees to be accepted from any country in 2017. This isn’t a new concept, as each year the president determines how many refugees will be admitted into the U.S., but the number is down from the previous 110,000.  While the U.S. has traditionally been one of the largest refugee resettlement countries in the world, this could easily change as Trump lowered the number to 50,000.

What Can We Expect to See Next?

While the current executive order was blocked by a federal court, this could all be a moot point as Trump has already announced his plans to rescind the current order and issue a new one that’s tailored around the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision.  Sounds like a façade, only to appease the constitutional issues raised by ban, as Trump has made his intentions clear about who he wants to allow in the country.

One of the main arguments against the ban is that it’s unconstitutionally discriminatory based on religion.  Even if a new executive order is issued, it doesn’t seem likely Trump can avoid another lawsuit for discrimination because who he wants to prohibit from entering the country is entirely grounded on a person’s religion and nationality.  At this rate, we’re likely to see a constant stream of legal battles over the next 4 years.

What our clients think

At LegalMatch, we value our client’s opinion and make it a point to address their concerns. You can refer to our reviews page if you want to know what our clients have to say about us.

Trump’s Immigration Ban: Domestic and International Rights at Threat

Banning a whole class of individuals based on their nationality is not only hateful, but legal professionals around the globe agree Trump’s immigration ban has a number of constitutional and international human rights issues to overcome.  The immigration ban not only restricts access into the United States for those from select black-listed countries, but it temporarily stops entrance for refugees seeking political asylum and permanently stops entrance for Syrian refugees.

Trump Immigration Ban

First Amendment

The Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment guarantees religious equality and restricts the government from establishing (or supporting) any one particular religion.  While Trump’s team insists the immigration ban is not a blanket ban targeting Muslims, it’s hard to refute that argument based on Trump’s previous campaign statements.

On its face, the text of the order doesn’t exclude Muslims, but the text of the ban does state priority is to be given to refugees of a minority religion.  Since the ban affects 7 Muslim-majority nations, this language strongly indicates a preference for non-Muslim religions.  I can’t stress enough how much this practice would be in direct contradiction to the establishment clause.

Fifth & Fourteenth Amendment

Trump’s executive order singles out individuals based on both their nationality and religion and encourages discriminatory visa processing procedures, all of which raise discrimination issues that violate due process rights.

Due Process rights under the 5th and 14th Amendment require fair treatment, both procedurally and substantively.  Both the way the law pans out and the way the law is written matter.  Not only must the government provide fair and sufficient notice before denying someone their life, liberty, and property, the government cannot enact laws it doesn’t have the authority to enact.  While executive orders have been traditionally accepted, presidents don’t have the authority to enact laws that are discriminatory and contrary to the principles of the Constitution and laws of our nation.

Trump’s blanket ban provides no processes or procedures for denying entrance into the U.S., which left many stranded, including legal visa holders.  There’s a strong argument those travelers were denied their procedural due process rights.  They were given no notice or chance to make alternative travel plans.  Attorneys scrambled to file writs of habeas corpus demanding that, as asylum seekers on U.S. soil, the government was required under the Immigration and Nationality Act to at least grant asylum hearings, something the order didn’t allow for.

U.N. Experts Say Ban Violates International Human Rights Obligations

In the midst of lawsuit upon lawsuit demanding a halt on the immigration ban for constitutional violations, a group of U.N. human rights experts have weighed in and say the United States is now in violation of its international human rights obligations.  Under non-refoulement principles, the U.N. has long held that nations cannot expel or return a refugee to an area where their life or freedom are threatened.

Will the Ban Hold Up in Court?

After multiple lawsuits were filed, judges across the country issued injunctions blocking certain aspects of the executive order.  The state of Washington filed suit on the order as a whole and U.S. District Judge James Robart blocked the order in its entirety.  Although Trump appealed the decision, normal screening procedures commenced and will remain in effect until a decision is handed down.

Despite Trump’s offensive tweets that questioned Judge Robart’s opinion, Trump seems to be a minority on this one.  Sixteen other state attorney generals have joined the lawsuit.  Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Maine, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and the District of Columbia have filed a brief as “friends of the court” to argue against the ban.  At least 127 tech companies have also filed briefs in opposition to the ban.

Trump cited a need to protect our nation from terrorist threats as the basis for the executive order, but it’s arguable the ban will do nothing to actually prevent future attacks.  Media attention has focused on the fact that none of the most recent attacks in the U.S. have originated from the countries on Trump’s list.  Certainly, national security interests can undoubtedly outweigh constitutional protections, but that should only be on a case-by-case basis and not a blanket ban based on nationality.  While courts traditionally have given the executive branch great leeway when it comes to immigration policy, it’s not likely this particular order will pass constitutional muster.