Posted by Angelo A. Paparelli on May 12, 2013

No Time for Rich-Whining, CIR Advocates Must Stay Focused on the Senate

Thumbnail image for grand vin Lafite.jpgWhile 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.

Schadenfreude abounded over the fall of Jason Richwine, proponent of the discredited eugenical theory of low-IQ Hispanic immigrants and co-author of an error-filled study, “The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer.” Apparently gobsmacked by the torrent of criticism, Richwine resigned from the Heritage Foundation, which promptly distanced itself from the man, if not his report. 

Frissons of excitement intensified with the prospect that Richwine’s fall would, at long last, also unmask the rantings of nativist groups, too long disguised as principled think tanks, and cause Republican pragmatists and evangalelicals to reject the wingnuts on their party’s fringe. If anyone needed convincing of the link between opposition to immigration reform and white supremacists, then Rachel Maddow’s tour de force report vaporizes all doubt:

 

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.

Posted by Angelo A. Paparelli on February 10, 2013

Memo to Immigration Reformers: "First catch your [EB-5] hare!"

Wild rabbit in the meadow.jpgWinston Churchill, whose mother was American (Jennie Jerome of Brooklyn), could just as well have been speaking about the components of comprehensive immigration reform.  Instead he was commenting on the Allies' post-World War II plans for world governance when, in the summer of 1942 with the war yet unwon, he said:

I hope these speculative studies will be entrusted mainly to those on whose hands time hangs heavy, and that we shall not overlook Mrs. [Hannah] Glasse’s Cookery Book recipe for the jugged hare—"First catch your hare."  -- The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill: Defender of the Realm, 1940-1965,  by William Manchester and Paul Re.

This quote came to mind as I pondered two recent developments, one widely reported and the other probably unseen by most.  The first involves the various and sundry cart-before-the-horse discussions in the House and Senate and at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue about essential elements of comprehensive immigration reform (CIR). The second is a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) press release announcing the filing of a civil complaint against a promoter and two LLCs alleging a scam involving over 250 Chinese investors reportedly duped into entrusting a total of $155 million in the hopes of gaining U.S. permanent residency under the EB-5 employment-creation immigrant visa category.

What's the connection?  Well, as everyone knows, Congress, the White House and the pro- and anti-immigration advocacy groups are busy arguing the pillars of immigration reform: border security, employment-based visa reforms, a path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants, and future flows of legal immigrants and sojourners.  Given much less, if any, attention, however, is whether the government's immigration bureaucracy can competently manage, regulate and enforce all these laws.  Are the immigration bureaucrats, judges and police up to the task?  

To answer that elemental question, first consider the wisdom of Jim Collins in Good to Great who maintains that leaders of organizations that "go from good to great":

. . . start not with "where" but with “who.” They start by getting the right people on the bus, the wrong people off the bus, and the right people in the right seats. And they stick with that discipline—first the people, then the direction—no matter how dire the circumstances.

I submit -- as I've argued elsewhere and often in this blog -- that:

  • The immigration agencies need more of the new breed of leaders who are just as passionate about customer service in the immigration-benefits sphere as they are about border security and the integrity of the system ("boarding the right people onto the bus");
  • The heel-draggers and naysayers among the immigration bureaucracy, the cultists of "No," the feather-bedding careerists, and the power-mongers -- all must be exited ("getting the wrong people off the bus"); and, especially important,
  • Our immigration leadership must be deployed strategically and intelligently ("putting them in the right seats on the bus").

So what's this got to do with the SEC's civil suit against some reputed EB-5 scammers? Everything; because it illustrates fundamental structural problems with the way Congress established the architecture for immigration management and oversight.  

The SEC has expertise in enforcing the securities laws, a statutory scheme developed to protect investors from unscrupulous promoters.  The agency's professionals understand capital formation and are far more adept (the Madoff fiasco notwithstanding) than USCIS at determining whether adequate disclosures are made and representations about investment opportunities are grounded in fact or fantasy.  Similarly, the Department of Commerce understands business, entrepreneurship, start-ups and the promotion of America's goods and services.

The Departments of Homeland Security and State, on the other hand, are expected to apply and enforce the Immigration and Nationality Act. Until recently, with the advent of the Entrepreneurs in Residence program, they have had precious little training in the ways of business. Indeed, near-term history has shown that the DHS and State Department components tasked with determining whether individuals and businesses qualify for immigration benefits or should be debarred from participation or admission to the U.S. -- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and U.S. consular officers in State, respectively -- have no special expertise in assessing legitimate or illegitimate business practices.

For examples in the EB-5 context see:

If the immigration adjudicators have neither training nor expertise in business analysis, why then do the immigration reformers in Congress, acting with the professed intention to spur business activity, job creation and economic prosperity, continue to entrust business-related issues arising under the immigration laws to USCIS adjudicators and American consular officers? Witness, as two examples among many, the allocation of power in recent employment-based immigration initiatives:  The StartUp Visa Act and the Startup Act 2.0.  These legislative proposals ask the Homeland Security Secretary to determine whether capital has been invested and jobs have been created.

The StartUp Visa Act asks DHS to decide if "a qualified venture capitalist, a qualified super angel investor, or a qualified government entity . . .has invested" at least $100,000 on behalf of a "qualified immigrant entrepreneur . . . whose commercial activities" in two years will "create not fewer than 5 new full-time jobs in the United States," and "raise not less than $500,000 in capital investment in furtherance of a commercial entity based in the United States; or . . . generate [at least] $500,000 in revenue."  

Similarly, the Startup Act 2.0 expects DHS to assess whether a "qualified alien entrepreneur . . . [has] register[ed] at least 1 new business entity in a State; . . . employs. . .  at least 2 full-time employees  . . . , invest[ed], or raise[d] [a] capital investment of, not less than $100,000 in such business entity; and . . .  during [a]3-year period . . . employ[ed], at such business entity in the United States, an average of at least 5  full-time employees . . ."

I propose that Congress re-visit the Homeland Security Act and determine whether it makes sense to house USCIS in the Homeland Security Department, rather than in the Justice Department, given that justice is a better alignment of USCIS's mission in terms of weighing the scales and meting out a fair decision grounded in facts and law.  

As for business and investment cases, particularly the EB-5 immigrant and E-2 nonimmigrant categories, decisions about investment sufficiency, investor protection, and job creation prospects should be vested in the Commerce Department or a similarly qualified department or agency of government. See, "Economic Prosperity - The Missing Immigration Mission," and February 19, 2010 Memorandum of the Alliance of Business Immigration Lawyers  to Alejandro Mayorkas, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Headquarters (USCIS) Re: "Employment-Based Immigration Proposals for Inclusion in Comprehensive [Immigration] Legislation":

Existing Executive-Branch Departments protect and promote important national interests: foreign policy (State), Homeland Security (DHS), Labor (DOL). No Department performs a similar function to support and defend the economic benefits of immigration as a means of fostering innovation and prosperity. “Fortress-America” policies and those that go too far in protecting domestic labor interests without recognizing the job-creating capabilities of employment-based immigration do a disservice to important national interests. CIR should create within the Department of Commerce or another suitable department an agency to support and protect the economic benefits of immigration. Meantime, USCIS should take steps to espouse, protect and defend encroachments on the job-creating power of business-related immigration laws. 

If and when Commerce or another qualified federal component approves the business-based facts as warranting immigration benefits prescribed under the immigration laws, only then would USCIS, DHS's immigration inspectors and State's consular officers determine the question whether the individual investor or family member is or is not admissible to the United States.  In other words, USCIS's role would be to run the security screens, document biometrics, keep out the unwelcome, and issue fraud-proof plastic green cards and work permits to deserving recipients under the employment-based immigration roles.

For this to occur, however, Congress must really think big.  It must create a new cabinet post, the Secretary of the Department of Immigration, charged with overarching authority to harmonize and reconcile immigration law and policy among the other federal departments and agencies, and accorded a budget and staff adequate to the task.

Quoting another famous Brit, John Lennon, who likely would likely have become an American had he not been murdered before qualifying for naturalization, "you may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."  For as Winston Churchill also said:

We shall not fail or falter, we shall not weaken or tire. Neither the sudden shock of battle, nor the long-drawn trials of vigilance and exertion will wear us down.

Posted by Angelo A. Paparelli on September 23, 2012

The Immigration Week That Was

Youthful fans of Saturday Night Live may be forgiven for assuming, however mistakenly, that SNL invented satirical television comedy. The patent for this invention probably ought to go instead to other earlier contenders, Jack Paar, Sid Caesar, Imogene Coco or Steve Allen.  While I love these past and present paragons of humor, I'll never forget the laughs my Dad and I shared watching an earlier NBC show, a precursor to SNL, the short-lived political revue, That Was the Week That Was.  

TW3, as it was known, an émigré from the BBC, hosted in the U.K. and the U.S. by David Frost, ran here only for two seasons, from 1964 to 1965 -- but a hilarious two years they were. The format for the show was simple:  Take the news of the past week and turn it into song-and-dance sketches reeking with ridicule, irony, satire and scorn.  With ballads by piano-thumping political troubadour, Tom Lehrer, TW3 featured timeless classics like "National Brotherhood Week" (enjoy the audio here, and the lyrics here).

That Was the Week That Was came reverberatingly to mind with the news of the last seven days.

The week began with the airing of a surreptitiously recorded video of presidential candidate Mitt Romney wishing out loud to an audience of wealthy contributors that, if his dad, George, the late Michigan governor, had not been born in Mexico of an American mother and father but instead of "Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot at winning this. I mean, I say that jokingly, but it would be helpful to be Latino." As the week proceeded, his campaign staff had to walk back Romney's claim that he'd never met anti-immigrant lawyer and father of AZ's SB1070, Kris Kobach (according to CNN, "Romney and Kobach have, in fact, met before at campaign events — but not in formal policy meetings”). The week ended with the resolution of a controversy stirred up by Stephen Colbert suggesting that the candidate had applied tanning spray before his appearance on Univision as a pander to its Latino viewers. The truth is that Romney's Ricardo Montalban look, as Univision has confirmed, came at the heavy hand of the network's make-up artist who daubed on too much "MAC Studio Fix powder and foundation." 

President Obama likewise had his turn on the Univision hot seat, admitting (duh!) that his biggest failure was failing to pass comprehensive immigration reform, and splitting hairs with the moderators over whether he had promised or not promised to do so (or merely try) in his first year in office or first term.

Another laughable moment came when the White House issued a statement and the State Department a video claiming how much easier than perceived it now is to visit America. Yes, they are right that more consular resources, enhanced customer service training and better queuing at ports of entry, among other measures, will improve the inbound traveler's experience.  But nothing will fundamentally create better first impressions until minimal standards of fairness are established for consular visa interviews and CBP interrogations. Yet another Administration official, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, surprised many with the risible observation that immigration hasn't been much of “a linchpin, red hot issue" in the presidential campaign.  Tell that to the 10 million Hispanic-Americans whose votes may be suppressed this year.

Congress too contributed to the week's fatuous merriment with the "BRAIN-STEM" follies.  Senator Schumer proposed a new BRAINS act which would allow a smart foreigner with family members to enter every time we deport an equivalent number of permanent residents. In the other chamber, House partisans bickered and failed to pass a green-cards-for-STEM-students bill that failed -- as Bill Clinton might say -- over "arithmetic."  Republicans wanted to eliminate 55,000 Diversity-Lottery visas to provide the immigrant-visa currency for the additional Science, Technology, Engineering and Math graduates from U.S. universities who would receive green cards, while the Democrats wanted to add, not subtract, green-card quota numbers for additional STEM graduates.

On the international front, an Italian court affirmed criminal convictions in absentia of 22 Americans (allegedly CIA operatives) by tossing a creamy tiramisu (a confection translated as "lift me up") at a Bush-era immigration policy known as rendition -- the act of removing (airlifting?) individuals from one country and forcibly immigrating them to another where they are likely to be tortured.  In other judicial news, a federal judge in Arizona lifted an injunction on the surviving piece of SB1070, known as the "show me your papers" provision, which many fear will play out as a "driving or walking while Hispanic" basis for arrest and removal.

The week's levity aside, some important and serious things happened as well:

Thinking back to TW3, I am reminded that the polarization and class warfare we see today likewise existed in '64 and '65, as acerbic songster Tom Lehrer croons in his timeless ditty, "National Brotherhood Week":

Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks,

And the rich folks hate the poor folks.

All of my folks hate all of your folks,

It's American as apple pie.  

Posted by Angelo A. Paparelli on August 05, 2012

Immigration Good Behavior -- a Riddle Riddled with Riddles

boy_looking_up_and_scratches_his_head.jpg"[A] riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma"  ~ Winston Churchill

The most quotable of British Prime Ministers could well have been talking about the American immigration system rather than describing Russia in 1939.  U.S. immigration law is like stratified rock, revealing layer on layer of Congressional accretions laid down over many years, with the superstructure upended in tectonic shifts triggered by the baffling and contradictory interpretations of multiple agencies and courts.  Not surprisingly, Thomas Stanley in The Millionaire Next Door recommended immigration law as a career, predicting that many foreign citizens, whether affluent or less so, would find America an attractive destination and need a chaperone to guide them through the maze of red tape.

If Congress ever grows enough of a spine to tackle comprehensive immigration reform, it must do more than merely resolve the big items -- border and interior enforcement; legalization of unauthorized migrants already here; and a plan for future flows of sojourners and permanent residents.  It must also strive to simplify the law.  

Consider what should be a straightforward concept -- following the rules.  How does a noncitizen comply with the immigration laws?  What does it take to maintain legal immigration status?  Sadly, the answer is as clear as fracking fluid runoff.  

For example, without any malevolent intent or affirmative act of misconduct, a temporary entrant (a "nonimmigrant") through the action of a third party, say a parent or spouse, a spouse's employer, a university official, or a lawyer, can "fail to maintain nonimmigrant status," be in a condition known as "unlawful presence" and "not [be] in a lawful nonimmigrant status" -- three phrases in law or regulation that often don't mean the same thing. Thus, a hapless individual may be seen by the authorities as having violated legal status but not be unlawfully present. This could occur, as one example among many, where the person is the spouse of a J-1 exchange visitor who is working under a form of employment permission known as curricular practical training, and the J-1 worker is fired. (This outcome would arise because unlawful presence only occurs if one overstays the period of status authorized, and an exchange visitor, like an academic or vocational student, is admitted for "duration of status," a condition that carries no date-certain expiration. Go figure.) 

Or, a foreign citizen can depart the U.S. holding a government certificate allowing permission to return (known as "advance parole") and then reenter in order to await the grant of a green card under the adjustment of status process.  Such a person would not have maintained nonimmigrant status -- indeed would not have any legal status (because parole is not a status) -- and yet would not have violated the immigration law. In essence, he or she would be in a non-status as an applicant under color of law awaiting the grant of a pending benefit.

Or, consider a foreign person with a U.S. work permit.  As I've noted in an earlier post about human levitation, you may have the right to work here but not to be here.

Or, you might have successfully changed or extended your work-visa status for one, two or three years and received from the immigration authorities an official approval notice with a clip-out status permit (the Form I-94) bearing a validity period, leave the country for a trip to see Grandma, and be readmitted with a new I-94 for a significantly shorter period. This occurs because one component of the Homeland Security Department, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), limits the I-94 to the expiration date of one's passport, while another DHS component, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), ignores the validity period of the passport, and holds that as a condition of maintaining nonimmigrant status you must always make sure your passport is unexpired.  

Often, the CBP inspector at the port of entry says nothing about having short-changed the expiration date on the I-94; hence, the entrant may not realize his/her status document has been unduly shortened.  The too-frequent result: An unwitting overstay occurs, thereby triggering unlawful presence. And even if the shortening of the status period is noted, the individual could reasonably believe that the longer of the two I-94s (in this case, the clip-out version) prevails over the shorter expiration period.  Or s/he may be misled by the DMV which issues a driver's license with a validity period extending to the later end date on the clip-out I-94.  

Whether or not the person is confused or misled, a USCIS adjudicator, a consular official abroad, a CBP inspector, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer or an immigration judge, when examining the person's immigration compliance history on some future date, may well deny an immigration benefit, refuse a visa, prevent entry or order removal -- all because of confusion over the simple concept of maintaining legal immigration status.

If that's not complicated enough, the legacy agency, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, repeatedly floated a notion (not a published regulation) known misleadingly as the "last action rule" in order to reconcile discrepancies in ending dates on two or more I-94 status documents. The "rule" sounds simple enough: Whichever status was the last one granted ("the last action") controls the person's nonimmigrant status.  Except, however, where the last action granted was based on a change rather than an extension of status, then the last action rule is inapplicable. For the stew that is the last action rule, see these confusing links: Bednarz letter, Cook Memo (and referenced Simmons letter), Hernandez letter, and unapproved AILA/INS October 17, 2001 liaison meeting minutes (Item II). 

Still worse, if the immigration laws make it virtually impossible to know who's in legal status, they make it harder than a Rubik's Cube to figure out who's here illegally, as DREAM activist Prerna Lal explains in "It's More Complicated than Legal vs. Illegal," her open letter to Ruben Navarette -- which challenges his defense of the slur, "illegal immigrant."

If my effort to explain the mumbo-jumbo of immigration violations and last actions remains confusing, I ask your pardon. Be heartened, however, that errors of these types can be fixed -- assuming that the immigration agency exercises its heart (which it occasionally does).  Still, it's a shame USCIS doesn't heed its stakeholders by expanding the areas of forgivable infractions and Congress does not write intelligible immigration laws for law-abiding individuals to follow, a code unlike the current immigration statutes that "yield up meaning only grudgingly" to reveal "morsels of comprehension [which] must be pried from mollusks of jargon."