French philosopher and aphorist, François-Marie Arouet, better known by his nom de plume, Voltaire, wrote in Italian that "Il meglio è l'inimico del bene [the perfect is the enemy of the good]."

The wisdom of this saying, championed by pragmatists everywhere, comes to mind upon reading a May 30, 2013 Policy Memorandum (PM) issued by the Department of Homeland Security component known as United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

The agency and its popular Director, Alejandro Mayorkas, must be commended for removing much of the entangling underbrush that has grown around the "Employment Creation" fifth preference immigrant visa category (EB-5) for an investor who places at risk either $500,000 or $1 million (depending on location) in a commercial venture projected to create at least 10 jobs for U.S. workers.

With the enthusiasm of a vigilant homeowner wielding a high-powered weed-whacker, USCIS's PM has obliterated many ambiguities and unanswered questions that had prevented the widely popular EB-5 investor program to reach its full potential.

In one document, USCIS offered a comprehensive set of interpretations that promises to allow the EB-5 category to flourish.  Gone are most of the lingering doubts about the viability of bridge financing, and the stultifying restrictions imposed by an overly granular application of multi-digit "NAICS" codes -- a numbering system known as the North American Industry Classification System that the U.S. Census Bureau uses to identify and monitor various types of business establishments.

Also welcome are clarifications concerning (a) the relative power of the states and USCIS to define Targeted Employment Areas or TEAs -- rural areas and areas with unemployment at or above 150% of the national unemployment rate; (b) the specific circumstances when USCIS-designated Regional Centers (public or private entities authorized to accept EB-5 funds and allow its foreign investors to count direct and indirect job creation in reaching the 10-jobs-per-investor minimum) may or must submit amended petitions in order to change business activities or location, or when prior favorable EB-5 determinations will be given "deference," i.e.,  binding effect; and (c) the very limited situations when a business plan that has been derailed by unforeseen changes might adversely affect the later USCIS decision whether to remove conditions on permanent residence.

Still, without striving for perfection, USCIS could have made the PM much better.  Here are my suggestions for EB-5 PM 2.0:

• Kill or reincorporate the past.  The latest PM takes a wishy-washy approach in dealing with several prior policy utterances, listed below:

The PM states: "Prior policy guidance, to the extent it does not conflict with this PM, remains valid unless and until rescinded."  Why allow ambiguities to linger?  USCIS should rescind all prior guidance and incorporate all extant EB-5 policies in a single document as THE EB-5 Policy. Having taken the weasely approach of allowing prior non-conflicting EB-5 policies to survive, the new PM merely begs the question and allows agency adjudicators, regional centers, individual investors and their lawyers to argue over the "extent" to which prior policies have been superseded or supplanted.  Enough with the arguing.  Make it clear in one document.   

• Republish the policy as a proposed or interim final rule in the Federal Register and allow notice and public comment.  The new PM says:

SCOPE: This PM is applicable to, and is binding on, all USCIS employees. * * *

VII. Use

This PM is intended solely for the training and guidance of USCIS personnel in performing their duties relative to the adjudication of applications and petitions. It is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or by any individual or other party in removal proceedings, in litigation with the United States, or in any other form or manner.

If USCIS were to pursue the admittedly slow procedure envisioned under the Administrative Procedure Act for publishing notice of a rule and the opportunity for the public to comment, none of the quoted verbiage, wiggle words no doubt drafted by the USCIS Office of Chief Counsel, would be necessary.  As welcome as the new PM is, and although it was preceded by a draft version on which the public was allowed to comment, USCIS never published the comments in the Federal Register (as would occur with a proposed or interim rule) and never explained why some comments were adopted and others eschewed.  Instead, the public and the courts are left to guess at whether the PM will actually be applied and be something on which the stakeholder community may rely.

• Make sure economists are not EB-5 adjudicators.  Last week at a public forum, Director Mayorkas waxed lyrical over a supposed innovation he heralded. Henceforth, EB-5 adjudications would be made not by Immigration Officers but by newly hired economists who, he surmises, are better equipped by education to tackle the complex business and economic issues that arise in EB-5 petitions.  From now on, USCIS would no longer adopt the "hire to train" approach, whereby an indivdual is brought into the agency without experience and then trained in adjudicating a variety of immigration-benefits petitions and applications.  Rather, here on out in the EB-5 context, according to Director Mayorkas,  the agency will pursue a "hire to the skill" strategy, one that means that the successful job applicant at USCIS will only be hired if s/he already possesses the requisite skill -- an approach much like that of private industry. While the "hire to the skill" concept has much to commend it, the particular skill USCIS requires is not that of an economist.  No, the skill in question is possessed by those with a legal education.  At bottom, the EB-5 -- although containing elements of economic theory -- is ultimately a legal determination made by the application of facts to law.  USCIS should instead offer positions at a level of GS-13 and above to persons with at least a juris doctorate, preferably with bar admission and the ethical testing that entails.  This is not forging a new path; rather, it is merely replicating the reorganization of an adjudication function as occurred when the USCIS Asylum Office was reconstituted with lawyers in place of multi-function general adjudicators.  Economists can be advisors but should never be USCIS adjudicators.
• Follow existing USCIS regulations in determining when a restructuring or reorganization creates a new EB-5 commercial enterprise. The EB-5 requires investment in a "new commercial enterprise" created, restructured or reorganized after the effective date of the law, November 29, 1990. On this point, the new PM states: 

The immigrant investor can invest in an existing business, regardless of when that business was first created, provided that the existing business is simultaneously or subsequently restructured or reorganized such that a new commercial enterprise results. 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(h)(2). The facts of Matter of Soffici — where an investor purchased a Howard Johnson hotel and continued to run it as a Howard Johnson hotel— were not sufficient to establish a qualifying restructuring or reorganization. 22 I&N Dec. 158, 166 (Assoc. Comm’r 1998) (“A few cosmetic changes to the decor and a new marketing strategy for success do not constitute the kind of restructuring contemplated by the regulations, nor does a simple change in ownership.”). On the other hand, examples that could qualify as restructurings or reorganizations include a plan that converts a restaurant into a nightclub, or a plan that adds substantial crop production to an existing livestock farm.

The PM too narrowly defines a corporate restructuring or reorganization as only encompassing a change in the business model or plan. Instead, USCIS should adopt a customary corporate or tax law determination of when a reorganization or restructuring occurs as it did in its I-9 (employment-eligibility verification) rules at 8 C.F.R. § 274a.2(b)(1)(vii).  In that USCIS regulation an employer has the option of treating an individual as either a continuing or a newly hired employee if the worker "continues his or her employment with a related, successor, or reorganized employer" and the "employer . . . continues to employ some or all of a previous employer's workforce in cases involving a corporate reorganization, merger, or sale of stock or assets . . ."  Thus, whenever a predecessor entity undergoes a change involving a corporate reorganization, merger, or sale of stock or assets, then the successor entity thereby created should be treated at the employer's option as a new commercial entity for EB-5 purposes.  If the "simple change in ownership" dictum of the legacy agency in Matter of Soffici is to the contrary, then USCIS should overrule it.  Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

• No EB-5 adjudication without representation.  USCIS must allow every party in the EB-5 ecosystem with a valid legal interest to protect the right to counsel at no expense to the government in proceedings before the agency.  USCIS must not persist in perpetuating conflicts of interest (real or really possible) by barring the attorney for the regional center or the pooled-investment enterprise to advocate for the validity of his or her client's position when a foreign citizen submits a petition for EB-5 classification on Form I-526 or a petition for removal of conditions on Form I-829. Regional centers and pooled investment entities have their businesses and brands at stake with every I-526 and I-829 submitted, yet USCIS muzzles them and expects the investor-chosen lawyer to carry their water.  The SEC would never require businesses to risk their assets or reputations by relying on the investors' counsel to argue their interests.  Neither should USCIS.
• No unsigned EB-5 adjudications.  The new PM goes a long way toward greater transparency, but not quite far enough.  The history of the EB-5 program has been pock-marked by policy reversals and arbitrary rulings.  One measure of transparency is accountability.  A decisionmaker becomes accountable when adjudicator puts on one's product his or her name (or nom de plum, in recognition of the need for personal and/or homeland security).  There must be a way for the government (outside of USCIS), the public and the EB-5 stakeholder community to hold accountable any adjudicator who repeatedly flouts USCIS's EB-5 policy.  If it worked for Voltaire (née François-Marie Arouet), it should also work for USCIS adjudicators.
• It's time for Expedited Adjudication.  Quite a while back, USCIS indicated that it would adopt Premium Processing expedited service for at least some EB-5 adjudications. With the hiring rate still barely keeping up with population growth, the time for quick decisions across all categories of EB-5 petitions is NOW.
• It's time for coupling. There is no reason why the new PM did not announce a benefit that is presaged in S. 744, the comprehensive immigration reform bill awaiting floor debate in the Senate.  That bill, as amended by a change Senator Leahy proposed, would allow foreign citizens who submit EB-5 petitions to file, concurrently, corresponding applications for adjustment of status to conditional permanent resident.  Concurrent petition and adjustment filing has long been allowed by USCIS -- without the need for enabling legislation -- in the first three employment-based green card categories. USCIS should extend the same privilege to EB-5 petitioners and their immediate family members.  

* * *

The USCIS should be applauded for issuing a comprehensible and almost comprehensive PM.  The huzzahs will be louder still if and when it adopts additional measures, suggested above and by others, that would create conditions for the EB-5 program to blossom even more prodigiously in the years ahead.

Immigration law and tax law, although at first glance strikingly different, share much in common.  Each rivals the other in complexity.  Each permeates every nook and cranny of human behavior -- from commerce and criminality to love and divorce, from mental illness to extraordinary brilliance, from birth to death and everything in between. Though each is a distinct legal discipline, they are but variant species within the general fields of administrative law, litigation and appellate law, public and private international law, family law, estates and trusts, criminal law, and of course constitutional law.  The sting of taxes -- forever coupled with death as life’s two unavoidable realities -- likewise is yoked to our all-pervasive immigration laws in ways both subtle and obvious.

Yet Americans are outraged when tax laws and revenue agents bite them, but seem scantly or not at all troubled when our immigration laws and their bureaucratic enforcers devour people and property rights.  No doubt this disparity of concern proves the maxim that it all depends on whether your own or your neighbor’s ox is gored.

Thus, amnesty generates nary a peep if granted to tax cheats, but stands as an outrageous transgression against the rule of law if leniency and pragmatism are offered to aspiring Americans who lack legal status.  So too with the terabytes of digital ink spilled over the recent revelation that IRS agents in Cincinnati probed more searchingly applicants for non-profit designation of the Tea Party persuasion than supplicants on the left. 

A scandal to be sure, but why is the public not similarly incensed when immigration agents cross the line and behave not as neutral technocrats but as political actors?

Consider the recent action of the federal union representing the officers of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) who announced in a press release that it had signed on to a letter issued by another government union, the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, which represents officers of a different immigration component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs & Immigration Enforcement (ICE). 

As The New York Times observed in a recent editorial, “Leaders of [the ICE and USCIS] unions have joined antireform hard-liners in trying to kill the [comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) bill that just passed the Senate Judiciary Committee], showing an unbending hostility to its goals."  The unions, sounding like health care workers forced to engage in practices that violate their collective conscience, and a bit like erstwhile presidential candidate, Rudy Giuliani, offer a scurrilous letter that resurrects all too familiar bogeymen as punching bags: “illegal aliens,” “gangs,” and “9/11.”  Sadly, however, as The Times observes, “[what] any of these false charges has to do with the work of immigration agents -- which is to enforce the immigration laws as written -- is beyond us.” Indeed, there is a "certain piquancy" when "conservative" Republicans opposing CIR scurry to become bedfellows with federal labor unions, clearly miffed at not being consulted by the Gang of Eight. 

Where is the popular outrage over the scandalous behavior of immigration officers that is just as abhorrent as the misadventures of errant IRS officials?  The actions of the IRS involved comparatively few agents in an understaffed local office, whereas the union leaders’ letter is offered as the shared belief of 7,000 ICE agents and 12,000 USCIS employees.

To immigration lawyers, the letter and press release are shocking not so much for their contents as the brazenness displayed in their publication.  With far more visibility than Luther’s famous nailing of his views on the Wittenberg church door, these unions are throwing down the passive-aggressive gauntlet to Congress, the Obama administration, and the leadership of DHS. They declare, in essence, “pass what you will, but watch how we interpret, apply and enforce the law!”

The unions raise hobgoblins over the discretion that the Senate bill, S. 744, would give to "political appointees" who allegedly prevent these oath-bound officers from administering the strictest letter of the law. Yet they fail to recognize that the absence of discretion in enforcement created the pickle we are in.  A nation that will not tolerate and cannot pay for the mass deportation of 11 million people must grant our only nationally elected leader, the President, and his chosen team, the power to be strict with those who threaten our safety and lenient with those who do us no material harm.

The immigration unions' power play has unmasked their insubordination for all to see.  They do not want merely to apply the law as written but to pick and choose the laws they will enforce and be the rulers themselves.  No government should tolerate this flouting of legislative will and executive authority.

Congress should recognize its mistake when, in passing the Homeland Security Act, it moved USCIS, the immigration benefits agency, from the Justice Department, where that function had historically resided, and co-mingled it irreconcilably with immigration enforcement at DHS.  CIR should put USCIS back into DOJ.  The legislation should also abolish USCIS's Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate, and reaffirm that the immigration enforcers' power to nab fraudsters, terrorists and other lawbreakers is a shared but exclusive function of the interior and border immigration police, respectively, ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Enforcement. Congress must also recognize its failure of immigration oversight that allowed the types of immigration scandals reflected by the unions' power grab to occur.

The President and the DHS leadership team must also grow spines.  Discipline and pink slips are the proper responses to insubordination.  The wrong way to go would be to give the unions more power to fashion law in their image, as President Obama reportedly did in 2009 when signing an "an executive order to allow the [IRS] union to have pre-decisional involvement in all IRS workplace matters."

In the final analysis, taxation and immigration -- and their associated scandals -- illustrate the same problem.  It arises when career bureaucrats are allowed to trample the rule of law in fits of partisan excess, and elected leaders, failing in timely oversight, are outraged only when the spotlight of media attention leads to enough public discontent that tenure in office and the prospects for reelection are threatened.     

While most of the nation fixated this week on black and brown American heroes in Cleveland, the attention of immigration advocates diverged.  They vacillated between delight with the imploding anti-immigration conservative movement and nail-biting over votes on a flood of amendments to the massive, bipartisan Gang of Eight bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

To be sure, there remain troubling questions about whether the current immigration system in America is inherently racist in its design, its effect or its enforcement, as this sometimes heated debate involving Unai Montes-Irueste, who writes for Politics 365, and immigration lawyers, Susan Pai and David Leopold, reveals:

Whatever the right answer (I could argue for all three positions), that debate will be left to historians if an enlightened form of comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) is enacted this year.  That won't happen, however, if the poison-pill pharmacists on the right are allowed to administer a deadly dose.  

Take for example, Sen. Ted Cruz (R. TX) who proposes a fatal amendment to bar any path to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. Or consider the Downton Abbey amendment offered by Sen. Mike Lee (R. UT) which would allow Americans to hire the undocumented but only if they served (apparently only the 1%) as "cooks, waiters, butlers, housekeepers, governessess, maids, valets, baby sitters, janitors, laundresses, furnacemen, care-takers, handymen, gardeners, footmen, grooms, and chauffeurs of automobiles for family use."

It's not only about preventing bad amendments but also preserving and improving on good ones.  Take for example an amendment that markedly improved on the Gang of 8 version which would merely have expanded the jurisdiction of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Ombudsman to also cover U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).  Proposed by Sen. Mazie Hirono (D. HI) and passed by voice vote, Section 1114 of the CIR bill creates a new "Ombudsman for Immigration Related Concerns" with the power to:  

• receive and resolve complaints from individuals and employers and assist in resolving problems with the immigration components of the Department [of Homeland Security].
• conduct inspections of the facilities or contract facilities of the immigration components of the Department.  
• identify areas in which individuals and employers have problems in dealing with the immigration components of the Department.  
• determine whether an individual or employer is suffering or is about to suffer an immediate threat of adverse action as a result of the manner in which the immigration laws are being administered, and intervene as necessary.  
• propose changes in the administrative practices of the immigration components of the Department to mitigate [identified] problems . . .
• review, examine, and make recommendations regarding the immigration and enforcement policies, strategies, and programs of [CBP], [ICE], and [USCIS].
• monitor the [three agencies' compliance] with law, regulations, and policy. [and] 
• request the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security to conduct inspections, investigations, and audits.

Consider also various amendments not yet voted on which are proposed by Sen. Leahy (D. VT). One would modernize and make permanent the EB-5 regional center program for immigrant investors. Others would enact family-based immigration benefits for same-sex couples by way of the "Uniting American Families Act of 2013" and another measure would recognize for immigration purposes all marriages valid under the laws of any state or country, including same-sex nuptials.

Ponder as well the amendments long espoused by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R. IA) who would add the heavy hands of hamstringing regulations and enforcement to the H-1B and L-1 bill, in ways even worse than the bad ideas already in the G8 proposal.  These amendments (Grassley 57 to 67), along with the base bill, would stifle innovation not only in the tech industries but they would also essentially declare illegal the modern business practice of global sourcing of services on which so many American companies and customers rely.

The point of this post is not that revelry over the fall of xenophobes and eugenicists is wrong; rather, it is that celebrations of that sort are unaffordable luxuries. That wine is just too rich at this late hour.  

Advocates for enlightened CIR must instead keep eyes peeled on the Senate Judiciary Committee and its fast-and-furious consideration of amendments which will profoundly reshape in ways unforeseeable the rules for employment- and family-based immigration.  This week's action will focus on Title IV which would transform (in good and bad ways) many of the most heavily-used nonimmigrant visa categories and create new classifications whose contours will be decided in the coming weeks, perhaps as soon as Memorial Day. 

So save your gloating for another day.  Now, keep the Congressional feet to the fire. Let the word go out in Twitter feed and Facebook update, in radio/TV talk shows on cable, broadcast and satellite networks, in blog posts and letters to the editor.  Let calls overflow the capacity of the Capitol Switchboard.  We need a modernized immigration system that functions well; not one hampered by bureaucratic red tape and heavy-handed, guilty-until-proven-innocent enforcement. It must spur 21st Century innovation and job creation in the private sector. And it must be true to our bedrock values of family unity and refuge for the persecuted. From your mouths to the Senators' ears.

The usual xenophobic suspects made the usual noises after the tragic events in Boston last week.  Perhaps the most premature outcry came from electrified-border-fence proponent, Rep. Steve King, Republican from Iowa, who a day after the marathon explosions linked a report (ultimately untrue) that a Saudi national had planted the bombs with King's mission to stop comprehensive immigration reform (CIR):

We need to be ever vigilant. We need to go far deeper into our border crossings. . . . We need to take a look at the visa-waiver program and wonder what we’re doing. If we can’t background-check people that are coming from Saudi Arabia, how do we think we are going to background check the 11 to 20 million people that are here from who knows where?

Another occurred on Reddit, where an amateur sleuth named Pizzaman along with multiple Reddit contributors noted the similarity to the photos of Suspect #2 (Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) and a missing Brown University student of Indian descent, Sunil Tripathi, whose whereabouts, sadly, remain unknown. (Reddit's moderator has since apologized for this misinformation disaster to the Tripathi family (who are as American as you and I.) 

Still another erupted, quite expectedly, from one of Ann Coulter's Twitter posts after the death of Suspect #1 (Tamerlan Tsarnaev) in which she mocked G8 member, Sen. Marco Rubio: "It's too bad Suspect # 1 won't be able to be legalized by Marco Rubio, now."

Similarly, long-time jingoist, Pat Buchanan suggested three days after the bombing that the focus should only be on border security.  Apparently forgetting that the Brothers Tsarnaev entered the U.S. legally, with the older having become a permanent resident and the younger a citizen, Buchanan slammed undocumented immigrants who aspire to become Americans:

Why do you have to do anything? What is this nonsense that ‘they’re in the shadows’? With due respect, they ought to be in the shadows! They’ve broken the law to get into the country…. Do nothing!… You [the Republican party] don’t have [to] bribe, you don’t have to give up your principled positions… in order to get Barack Obama to do his duty and defend the border!

Fortunately, CIR proponents on the right and left in Congress and elsewhere gave forth with rapid responses:

• Republican point man on immigration in the House, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, disagreed with Sen. Grassley: "[E]very crime that is committed right now is under the current immigration system. So what does that lead me to believe? We need to fix the current immigration system, if in fact there is any connection between immigration at all."
• A spokesman for Sen. Marco Rubio (R. FL) issued this statement:  “There are legitimate policy questions to ask and answer about what role our immigration system played, if any, in what happened . . . Regardless of the circumstances in Boston, immigration reform that strengthens our borders and gives us a better accounting of who is in our country and why will improve our national security. Americans will reject any attempt to tie the losers responsible for the attacks in Boston with the millions of law-abiding immigrants currently living in the US and those hoping to immigrate here in the future.”
• Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham released a joint statement: “Some have already suggested that the circumstances of this terrible tragedy are justification for delaying or stopping entirely the effort. . . In fact, the opposite is true: Immigration reform will strengthen our nation’s security by helping us identify exactly who has entered our country and who has left.”
• Democrats, Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin, also rejected the flawed reasoning which would link CIR to the bombings.  Sen. Schumer warned against the temptation to "“jump to conclusions” and “conflate” the Boston tragedy with immigration reform. Sen. Durbin noted that CIR would enhance our security: "[E]veryone, the 11 million people who were basically living in the shadows in America, [has] to come forward, register with the government, go through a criminal background check. That will make us safer.”  I made the same point when the Christmas-time underwear bomber succeeded in nothing more than scorching his private parts. See "Using Immigration to Stem the Terror Threat," (Dec. 30, 2009).
• The New York Times Editorial Board observed that CIR's opponents are desperate and that CIR would make finding wrongdoers easier: "Until the bombing came along, the antis were running out of arguments. They cannot rail against 'illegals,' since the bill is all about making things legal and upright, with registration, fines and fees. They cannot argue seriously that reform is bad for business: turning a shadow population of anonymous, underpaid laborers into on-the-books employees and taxpayers, with papers and workplace protections, will only help the economy grow. About all they have left is scary aliens. . . .There is a better way to be safer: pass an immigration bill. If terrorists, drug traffickers and gangbangers are sharp needles in the immigrant haystack, then shrink the haystack. Get 11 million people on the books. Find out who they are."
• Matthew Iglesias of Slate suggested seemingly counterintuitive but spot-on points that doing nothing will only encourage illegal immigration and let more terrorists and killers in and that the proposed 20,000-to-200,000 W visas for lesser-skilled workers likewise may be insufficient to stem illegal border crossings -- the precise point I made on April 18 to Abigail Rubenstein of Law360 Employment ("[That] the U.S. Chamber and the AFL-CIO reached a consensus on a lesser-skilled worker visa is wonderful, but the numbers make the program illusory").
• The General Counsel of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, David Leopold, persuasively explained, in essence, that immigration adjudicators are not soothsayers and that no one can foresee how an immigrant's life will turn, as reported in The Atlantic: "At the time that the Tsarnaevs applied for asylum, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar were very young. There was almost certainly nothing in their background that would have raised any red flags; apparently, there was nothing in the father's either. Here, Leopold made a key point: 'You can't predict future behavior.' For any democratic country that wants to participate in international society, Leopold pointed out, you have to assume some level of risk. Despite that, 'the systems they have in place,' meaning those security screenings, are 'doing the job.'"

Despite CIR proponents' quick retorts, the Boston bombings will likely make enactment all the more difficult.  Unlike an esteemed colleague who predicts a less than 50% chance, I'm still optimistic that CIR will be enacted.  If anything, Boston made the price of doing nothing simply too high.  Still, with background checks on gun sales a non-starter in the Senate despite 90% support among the American people, nothing can be taken for granted.

Here's what CIR's proponents must do now:

•  Urge the Senate to adjust the balance of funding in the Senate proposal, the "Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act’’ (or, "BESSIE MAE," as a prominent immigration editor has dubbed it) between border security (proposed at an overly generous and likely somewhat wasteful $6.5 billion) and the measly, wholly inadequate amount ($10 million) authorized for the integration of immigrants into American society. Whenever a refugee or any other immigrant comes to America, we want to provide the environment to prosper like Google founder Sergey Brin, a refugee from the Soviet Union, and not turn sociopathic as apparently happened with bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.  Meantime, until CIR is passed, kudos to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for its recently announced Citizenship and Integration Grant Program, which will offer almost $10 million in funding during the grant period.
• Remind Republicans that the November 2012 election was a watershed. Republicans will continue to be the party of old white men, unless they take the politically smart and courageous act to pass CIR. Doing nothing is not an option if the GOP is to survive.
• Humanize the immigration debate. Point out that among those killed in the bombings was Lu Lingzi, an only child and Boston University graduate student majoring in Mathematics and Statistics -- precisely the type of STEM student we want here -- whose death her father described as like a "dagger in our hearts."
• Point to history.  We didn't stop immigration after the Puritans (themselves religious refugees) conducted their deadly Salem Witch Trials. Indeed, had America closed the door to English refugees, there'd be far fewer Anglos who oppose CIR.
• Make the point that Bostonians and the police got it right. Show that the post-bombing resilient spirit of Boston, and the close collaboration of federal and state law enforcement personnel (who cooperated superbly in speedily identifying and neutralizing the suspects), demonstrate that we've grown up as a country and a government since 9/11.  No virulent backlash against foreigners has sprung up since Monday's bombing, save for the vicious hate spewing from a few, notably, Fox News contributor Erik Rush, who tweeted "Let's kill all of them (Muslims)" and then backed down quickly after he was confronted, claiming that he was merely engaging in sarcasm.  Here, unlike 9/11 there was no inter-agency withholding of information and no governmental failure to connect the dots.  Indeed, the immigration system, insofar as it was involved, worked, given that USCIS held off on the naturalization application of Tamerlan Tsarnaev based on information derived from the FBI's investigation into his background.
• Make sure that CIR clearly puts the burden on the immigration agencies to publish implementing regulations on strict deadlines or face a loss of funding, and that Congress conducts regular public oversight hearings after enactment during the implementation phase.  If the events of last week proved anything -- no, not the bombing, but rather the Texas fertilizer plant explosion that killed at least 14 people -- it is that government agencies must be held accountable and be funded properly (see my first bullet above about rational allocation of immigration budgets). User fee funding as the primary financial source for CIR implementation, which the G8s' proposal envisions, simply won't do.

The last time America was hit on its soil -- September 11, 2001 -- a different, far more modest immigration reform, known as Section 245(i), fell victim to the understandable Congressional blowback, even though that provision would have helped numerous undocumented immigrants who had nothing to do with terrorism.  Well that was then.  This time it's different.  America has matured.  CIR will pass, unless its supporters fail at the ground game of persuasively mobilizing public opinion and holding our legislators' feet to the fire.  Let's not get all weak-kneed and wobbly when vigilance and community organizing like never before is what's required.  And we should recognize that eight-year-old bombing victim, Martin Richards, could just as well have been describing why we need immigration reform when he wrote these words on his poster:  "Let's stop hurting people. Peace."

[Blogger's Note: This post -- originally published on March 31, 2013 -- is a guest column (updated on April 3, 2013) to reflect actions by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

The original post was authored by a former federal government official who played a substantial role in immigration policy. The revisions were added by your blogmeister. Our guest columnist desires anonymity but provides thoughtful commentary on a work visa program gone awry.

The H-2B visa, it seems, has become everyone's punching bag -- from the courts, to Congress, to the administrative agencies that implement our immigration laws, not to mention organized labor and business interests.

As the final stumbling block to comprehensive immigration reform is  removed – a system to provide for future flows of lower skilled workers, we can only hope that this presumed successor to the H-2B will prove more functional than the present convoluted skein it will replace.]

Oh What a Tangled Immigration
Web We Weave:
A Knotty Future For the H-2B Program

By Keyrock

H-2B (or not H-2B) is indeed the question on the minds of many employers following a recent federal court decision in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  In a situation befitting the indecisiveness of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, employers who rely on the H-2B program -- the visa category for temporary and seasonal workers, other than those in agriculture (H-2A) and specialty occupations (H-1B) -- find themselves beset by uncertainty on all sides:  the courts, the Congress and the Department of Labor (DOL). 

First, the uncertainly from the courts.  In just the past four years, legal disputes over the H-2B program and DOL’s  authority to issue regulations have grown increasingly complex, involving no fewer than four separate lines of litigation heard by judges in four district courts and three courts of appeals, with cases presenting overlapping issues and claims producing conflicting decisions affecting different groups of plaintiffs, defendants and intervening parties.  Presently, contradictory decisions from federal courts in Pennsylvania and Florida about whether DOL possesses authority to issue H-2B regulations are on appeal at the 3rd and 11th Circuit Courts of Appeal, respectively.

The litigation began in Pennsylvania in 2009 with a suit by a worker advocacy group challenging DOL’s first-ever H-2B regulations.  A 2010 decision in that case found flaws with the notice and comment process relating to DOL’s  4-tier wage calculation methodology in the program.  As a result of the court’s decision, DOL continued to use the 4-tier wage structure while they attempted to promulgate a replacement rule. 

In August 2011, DOL proposed a replacement rule, commonly known as the H-2B Wage Rule.  But in doing so, DOL fundamentally altered the longstanding wage methodology in the program forcing some employers to immediately absorb wage increases of more than 100%.  In the fall of 2011, facing the prospect of economic ruin from DOL’s wage rates, employers filed suit in Louisiana (subsequently transferred to Pennsylvania) challenging the agency’s authority to issue the Wage Rule.  Shortly thereafter, DOL published another set of H-2B regulations, which were then enjoined by a federal court in Florida and that decision was upheld in 3-0 decision by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on April 1.

Last week,  the Pennsylvania judge added to the uncertainty for employers by issuing a decision relating to the original H-2B case from 2009.  In the opinion, the judge removed from the H-2B regulations, the 4-tier wage calculation that had been found procedurally invalid in the 2010 opinion (by the now-deceased judge who originally heard the case), but which DOL was continuing to use as a result of the other litigation and intervening congressional action. 

DOL’s actions add to the uncertainty.   In response to the Pennsylvania ruling, DOL declared in a March 29 Notice, that as of March 22 it is no longer issuing H-2B wages to employers unless they seek a wage based on (1) a collective bargaining agreement, (2) a Service Contract Act determination, (3) a Davis-Bacon Act determination, or (4) a private wage survey.  DOL further indicates in the Notice that it will publish yet another rule within 30 days describing how it will issue H-2B wages in the future. 

But, in the midst of the litigation back in the fall of 2011, Congress sided with employers opposed to DOL’s Wage Rule by attaching a “rider” to the agency’s appropriations bill that prohibits the agency from implementing that rule.  The rider has repeatedly been renewed, including as recently as last week when the President signed into law the 2013 government funding bill on March 26.  As part of the ongoing restriction on DOL’s appropriations bill, Congress (and the President) have directed DOL to continue to apply the very same 4-tier wage methodology vacated by the Pennsylvania judge on March 21.

So what will DOL do when it issues a new wage rule in the next few weeks?  Curiously, DOL’s  Notice says it will promulgate a rule “that complies with the court’s interpretation of what the statutory and regulatory framework require.” Missing from that statement is any recognition that Congress has already dictated what is required by DOL. And DOL’s Notice obviously does not reference the just-released 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which says DOL lacks authority to issue H-2B regulations.  What DOL will do next is anyone’s guess.

USCIS weighs in by suspending action on H-2B petitions.  Adding to employer travails, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) -- in light of the Pennsylvania federal court injunction -- announced on April 2 that it will temporarily cease adjudication of all H-2B petitions, in part, because the "Department of Labor intends to promulgate a revised wage rule within 30 days of the date of the Court order." 

Congress started it all.  Much of this uncertainty stems from the language Congress used (or didn’t) when the H-2B program was created as part of the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986.  The sparse statutory language describing the H-2B program, particularly when compared to the language describing the H-2A program, has led to real questions about the extent, and even the existence, of DOL regulatory authority over the program.  Those questions continue to produce a growing mountain of court decisions, congressional directives, regulations, enjoined regulations, and statutory language [8 U.S.C 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b)] that have tied the H-2B program in knots. But now, the 11th Circuit, in the only appellate decision weighing in on the topic, seems to have resolved that question (for now) in declaring that the statutory language reflects a conscious decision by Congress not to grant DOL rulemaking power in the H-2B program.

The H-2B program is a critical lifeline for many seasonal businesses that cannot find sufficient numbers of U.S. workers who want to take the relatively short-term employment opportunities.  Studies have shown that these seasonal jobs filled by foreign workers are, however, important to our economy and lead to the employment of many thousands more year-round U.S. workers.  If the DOL fails to provide H-2B employers with market-based wage rates, critical seasonal jobs will go unfilled and as a result, businesses and their U.S. workers will suffer.

Congress has an excellent opportunity to clear up the uncertainty about the H-2B program as part of comprehensive immigration reform legislation.  Unfortunately, as many learned observers have noted,  real concerns persist about whether an immigration deal can be reached given the hostility some interest groups reportedly have towards any type of guest worker program.

If, as an old Pope once said, “hope springs eternal,” let’s hope the arrival of spring brings some untangling of uncertainties for employers who rely on the H-2B program to meet their short-term and seasonal labor needs.