Nation of Immigrators - A public policy blog on America’s dysfunctional immigration system

Last week I ventured into an alternate reality. Like the child, Alice, descending through the rabbit hole, I engaged on immigration with Executive-Branch officials, immigration lawyers, members of Congress, including the indefatigable champion of immigration reform, Rep. Luis Gutierrez, their staffs, and a group of 7th and 8th graders advocating on the Hill for passage of the DREAM Act.

At the same time, bloggers, Tweeple and cable-TV bloviators could not stop talking about the separate comments of a current member of the Supreme Court and of a former judge.

The sitting jurist is Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose enigmatic notions of liberty will likely spell the fate of President Obama's signature measure, the Affordable Care Act, including its provision of medical coverage to uninsured children. 

The ex-judge, once a Virginia magistrate, is Robert Zimmerman, father of the man who slayed 17-year-old, Skittles-armed Trayvon Martin.  Magistrate Zimmerman enraged many by observing, implausibly, that he is tired of "all the hate" coming from President Obama, apparently referring to the pitch-perfect, hate-free and only remarks of the President on Trayvon's death. As the Washington Post reported, President Obama said:

I can only imagine what these parents are going through . . . And I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this, and that everybody pulls together — federal, state and local — to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened . . . If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon . . . When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids.

Also last week, the Director of USCIS, Alejandro Mayorkas, spoke poignantly (even more intimately than in his earlier writings) of the losses and sacrifices his parents endured as they gave their children unimagined opportunities in America.  He recalled an indomitable father who lost his livelihood and property in Castro's Cuba and yet built a new business in faraway California.  He remembered a loyal, loving mother who came here as a refugee but would not rest until his brothers joined them in America.

Out on the campaign trail, concern for children was also the topic of the week. Rick Santorum -- ever solicitous of keeping children on the straight and hetero path -- warned a young boy not to use a pink bowling ball. Meantime, supporters of Mitt Romney, seeking to reveal his tender side, coaxed him into telling the moving story of how at Bain Capital he closed the shop one day and with his employees went searching for a 15-year-old girl who'd gone missing in Manhattan.

Love of children, however, only goes so far within the Beltway.  Children raised in America but born on the wrong side of an arbitrary, human-drawn boundary are not recipients of otherwise bountiful political love. As several child lobbyists (U.S. citizens all), mustering arguments for the DREAM Act, told legislators and staffers alike last week, "it's the moral thing to do."  These under-age advocates, however, didn't rely solely on the heart and soul.  Citing a RAND study, they also pitched arguments to the head, noting that the economic benefits of giving DREAMers legal status would be a net economic plus for America.

Their petitions, though politely received, seemed mostly to fall on deaf ears.  The Capital cognoscenti all acknowledge that there is no chance for a vote on the DREAM Act before November's election. 

Even more dispiriting, the much-heralded Obama-Administration palliative of interim relief through the exercise of prosecutorial discretion (PD) is working, at best, in feeble fits and starts.  Judging from the comments I heard in DC, PD -- as implemented by ICE and apparently not at all by USCIS -- looks to be a disingenuous ploy to assuage the left and an administrative convenience to clear the backlog of cases pending in the immigration courts, including those with strong grounds for relief from removal.  

Trying to put lipstick on this homely pig, a senior ICE official claimed at a bar gathering last week that the PD program, though in its infancy, is proving successful.  I challenged him, noting that none of the members of ICE's union, constituting the bulk of ICE's 7000-person workforce -- have taken PD training. Another lawyer agreed, recounting the words of an ICE officer who told her, "I'm a deportation officer, not a discretion officer."  Undaunted, the senior ICE official responded that, though the union members make the arrests, ICE supervisors and managers decide on grants or refusals of PD. Still, the fact remains, as ICE admits, that only 1% of detained immigrants and 8% of those in removal proceedings have been given PD.

Worse yet, PD by itself, without a companion grant of deferred action status (which offers a path to a work permit), is no more protective of a DREAMer's well being than snake oil. A PD grant without deferred action status allows the grantee one hard-hearted benefit -- the opportunity to vegetate in America, like a bromeliad, on thin air. 

Administration defenders of the PD-only policy say that deferred action is the most precious form of PD, requiring multi-level signoff within ICE. Similarly, at USCIS deferred action can only be granted on the recommendation of a Field Office Director and the approval of a Regional Director.  Astonishingly, according to Congressional staff and agency insiders, the USCIS units that decide the vast majority of applications for immigration benefits (the Regional Service Centers in Vermont, Texas, California and Nebraska) have no authority to grant deferred action.

If President Obama really cares deeply about children, he must do more than applaud his Justice Department for its proper decision to investigate the senseless killing of Trayvon Martin.  He must also explain what "every parent in America should be able to understand" and show "why it is absolutely imperative" that we not waste our DREAMers' young lives. 

As I explained to CBS radio recently, he should make sure ICE focuses on removing really dangerous felons like the Vietnamese ex-con who'd been ordered removed in 2006 and now is alleged to have killed five people in San Francisco. 

The President should also order ICE and USCIS to grant deferred action status generously, with less reliance on time-consuming case-by-case analysis and instead on an approach that is more quick and predictable. Perhaps, the method for determining deferred-action eligibility could be a presumptive yes-or-no decision based on a point system whereby values or demerits are calculated in alignment with the positive and negative factors identified in the June, 2011 Morton Memorandum.  The point system should feature a two-way override.  ICE should have discretion where warranted to overturn a presumptive "yes," and the person seeking deferred-action should be allowed to present evidence and seek to reverse a presumptive "no."  This presupposes that we eliminate the charade that deferred action cannot be requested but merely is something that dawns on an immigration officer once s/he has stumbled upon facts warranting this act of administrative grace and convenience. 

The case-by-case, PD-only policy has failed. At best, it has helped a tiny number of people to try and live as air plants in America. USCIS (and ICE, for those in immigration proceedings) should charge a filing fee to cover the cost of considering applicant-generated requests for deferred action.  In these times of budgetary constraint, this is the only way to resolve the problem of large numbers of unauthorized persons with positive traits and abiding ties to this country who present no danger and are too numerous to deport at an affordable cost.

* * *

As my week in Washington ended, I couldn't help but note the plentiful examples of our nation's founding, an action based on the same moral principles of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as cited by the junior high students who last week urged passage of the DREAM Act.  America's seminal document, the Declaration of Independence, as Alex Nowrasteh of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, noted last week ("The Founders' Immigration Policy"), remains alive today. Our forebears, in announcing their separation from England, explained that severance of common citizenship with the British was necessary because the American colonists had "appealed to [the British people's] native justice and magnanimity" to reverse the "usurpations" of King George III, but nonetheless they "have been deaf to the voice of justice."

Oh son of a Kenyan and son of Cubans, be not deaf to the voice of justice.  If you could adopt more children, they should look like our DREAMers.

From the first prehistoric evenings sitting around campfires, humans have been telling stories. Heroic myths, fairy-tale fables, oral histories -- all have been seared into heart and memory through the power of narrative. Civil and criminal trials are merely stylized forms of storytelling.  Journalism's hook, theatre's Sturm und Drang, reality television's sour and sweet confections -- all are bottomed on stories.

Although I've mentored dozens of able and bright immigration lawyers, some new, some not so, I continue to be amazed at how few appreciate the power of telling stories (double entendre intended).  Sadly, the unscrupulous -- the notarios, consultants and sleazebags with a law license -- know too well the power of storytelling -- but I'm talking about truthful, factual, accurate stories, not fabrications.

Some stories tell themselves, like the saga of my pro bono client, Shyima Hall.  Born in Alexandria, Egypt as Shyima Hassan, one of 11 children in a poor family, she is sold by her mother at age 9, and smuggled into America a year later to work for a wealthy Egyptian couple in my town, Irvine, California, a 'burb often rated, ironically, one of the most crime-free cities in America. After three years of captivity, working night and day for the couple and their five children, sleeping in their unheated, unlighted garage, washing her clothes in a bucket, she is spotted by a suspicious neighbor who tips off the police. The couple is convicted and Shyima is taken to Orangewood orphanage, then adopted by a foster couple, and along the way befriended by a compassionate agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  

Shyima obtains a green card as a Special Immigrant Juvenile.  After high school, she travels around the country with ICE to speak about the dangers of human trafficking and urge trafficked victims to be brave and come forward. She volunteers with the Public Law Center, the Orange County Human Trafficking Task Force, and other anti-slavery groups such as the Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking. 

Years later, serendipity leads me to Shyima (who is now a young adult).  It prompted me on a whim to pop into the office of an ICE communications officer to say hello at the close of a USCIS California Service Center Stakeholders Meeting. The officer tells me about Shyima and her goal to become an ICE officer, but also of this amazing woman's preliminary need to find pro bono counsel who'll help her become a naturalized American. Asked to find Shyima pro bono counsel, I volunteer myself and my firm. The media have followed Shyima's story, since she was first released from captivity, and again just last week in this Los Angeles Times piece and this AP article as well as the following video, shot on the day of her oath-taking and embrace of American citizenship.

Not all immigration stories flow naturally with such a dramatic arc. Some are hidden and must be teased out and coaxed to appear. Immigration lawyers who can do this, in my view, "are worth their weight in gold," as another immigration-agency communications officer, Karen Kraushaar, once told the Washington Post (before she moved on to another federal job and later joined other women accusing Herman Cain of sexual misconduct  -- a totally different story in itself).

In truth, Ms. Kraushaar was referring to Immigration law's complexity ("[It's] a mystery and a mastery of obfuscation"). While surely the ability to traverse code sections, regulations, policy interpretations and institutional history matters (as the Supreme Court unanimously demonstrated this week in the Judulang case), that's not the whole story. 

Telling immigration stories matter(s) just as much, sometimes more. Good immigration stories entice.  Unlike the physical imprisonment of Shyima's Irvine garage, they create emotional captivity. They have the power, as in Shyima's case, to melt the (too-often) frozen heart of ICE. Take for instance the 50 real-life biographies depicted so well, with vivid photos and eloquent word pictures, in a new book, Green Card Stories. These stories, however, did not tell themselves.  They required worth-their-weight-in-gold immigration lawyers (mostly members of the Alliance of Business Immigration Lawyers) to bring them to life.

Immigration lawyers, paralegals, U.S. citizen spouses and families of the foreign born, employers of non-citizens, and would-be Green Card holders:  Read this book! It will inspire you to make your clients', families', employees' and your own Green Card stories a reality. These stories, like all well-told immigration biographies, humanize the demonized and prove that they are worthy of welcome. These dramatically revealed tales of truth and hardship, often extreme and exceptional, unmask the lies of the nativists and the naïve, who make or believe the make-believe memes about immigration, legal and illegal. They help us "Define American."

The recent CNN GOP debate on foreign policy surprised many for what it included and excluded.  Amazingly, nothing was said of the European debt crisis that threatens to create severe financial blowback in America.  The surprise by inclusion came from Republican flavor of the month, Newt Gingrich, who responded to a domestic policy question on immigration, specifically, what America should do with the large population of unauthorized immigrants among us:

"If you've come here recently, you have no ties to this country, you ought to go home, period. If you've been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you've been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don't think we're going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out."

This prompted an attractive or repellant response (depending on one's views) concerning magnets. Candidates Bachmann and Romney chided Gingrich on the magnet of amnesty and the magnet of taxpayer-subsidized college tuition for DREAMers -- although post-debate reporting and opposition research revealed that both Willard Mitt and Michele Marie have espoused positions on legalization similar to Newton Leroy McPherson (Newt's name at birth).

However much they differ or align on legalization, there is one consensus magnet on which all 2012 candidates (including President Obama) agree -- the magnet of jobs.  It's not so much our freedoms of press, religion and assembly, our right to bear arms, our purple mountain majesties, or people like Steve Jobs, but rather, jobs -- the candidates opine -- are what impels foreigners to America.  Take away the attraction of unscrupulous employers looking the other way, identity thieves vending new impersonations, and accommodating document forgers doing a bustling trade.  Demagnetize them in the slammer, and then otherwise desperate non-natives willing to cross burning deserts and fortified borders will instead pursue opportunities elsewhere or stay put abroad.  Or so the theory goes.

In reality, however, the problem of dysfunctional immigration policies is not one of a jobs magnet, or an amnesty magnet, but rather the very program inaugurated in 1986 with President Reagan's signing of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) to punish employers who violate the law. Our immigration system remains broken today because it was fundamentally flawed in concept from the outset.  Congress has consistently declined since 1986 to mandate that everyone -- American citizens and foreigners alike -- carry a national identity document and present this ID when applying for work. 

Instead, lawmakers copped out, or rather, outsourced the function of immigration cop to the private sector. By privatizing immigration enforcement as a date-of-hire requirement foisted on employers, but not making identity verification essentially foolproof through the creation and distribution of a national ID card, Congress doomed IRCA to fail. In effect, federal lawmakers forced the nation's employers and their human resource representatives to choose one of three options: Lawbreaker, Naïf or Stooge.  None of these choices attract, magnetically or otherwise.  An extended stay at Club Fed is not desirable.  Neither is naive ill-preparedness or the prospect of serving as Congressional whack-a-mole at the IRCA carnival.

As the Obama Administration mounts its ever-increasing silent raids on American businesses, demanding to see Forms I-9 (Employment Eligibility Verifications), payroll records and other required documentation, employers have had little choice but to prepare for the enforcement juggernaut. Increasingly, as explained here and in the video below, employers must ready themselves for the likely, if not quite inevitable, visit by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or another federal immigration law enforcer:     

Some may think that the problem of job magnets will be solved once E-Verify, the federal employment verification database, becomes mandatory, as House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Lamar Smith (R. TX) has proposed.  It will not -- because E-Verify suffers from the law of GIGO.  The database is debased because it depends on the doubtful accuracy of Social Security Administration and Homeland Security Department records.  Moreover, although E-Verify has recently (and rather quietly) gained access to Department of State records on American citizens who've received a U.S. passport or passport card (I for one don't remember giving permission), and Mississippi DMV records, the e-system remains incomplete.  It still cannot catch identity theft and citizen impersonators.  It will not be foolproof until every American, not just every foreigner, is in the database.

That's not likely to happen anytime soon.  Witness the strange bedfellows of immigration who have opposed the REAL ID Act and encouraged states to drag their feet or demand waivers of the requirement that states satisfy federal standards for issuing new drivers licenses.  Opposition is also growing over a similar identification requirement, the Voter ID laws cropping up across the country. 

Politicians skirmishing for debating points will not solve our immigration dysfunctions.  The solution can only begin when the citizenry participates in a dialogue about the loss of privacy and creeping totalitarianism that a national work ID card might spawn.  We take our shoes off and allow ourselves to be irradiated or groped just to catch a plane.  Are we ready to be biometrically identified in a digital dossier to get a job?

Today, the 10th anniversary of the terrorist savagery of September 11, 2001, the nation pauses to remember the fallen and reflect on how our country has changed in the decade past.  PBS and The New Yorker offer worthy contemplations on the changes since 9/11 and today, and two immigration lawyers, Cyrus Mehta and Jonathan Montag, on opposite coasts, ponder the immigration aftermath of the tragedy. (My own writings not long after the event are here, here, here and there.)

Amid the many reflections, Twitter has been even more abuzz than usual.  One exchange of tweets caught my eye. Michelle Malkin, anti-immigration commentator on Fox News, argued with a fellow who maintained that none of the 9/11 hijackers were undocumented immigrants. She posted a link and got him to admit that although all of them had entered legally, three had overstayed their visas. She ended the exchange with this coup de grâce: 

@michellemalkinMichelle Malkin 

Few objective observers would deny that immigration enforcement and homeland security are linked, or that too lax an enforcement regimen could well threaten our country's safety. But a fundamental question remains. Has the federal government properly achieved the right balance in the middle between the extremes of super-enforcement -- a hermetically sealed country that would atrophy without external refreshment -- and a breezily open-door approach that allows the bad to enter with the good?  Has it balanced immigration enforcement with immigration benefits?

My answer would be mostly "no." The problem originated with Congress's effort to try and fix things.  It placed the benefits-conferring function of the abolished Immigration and Naturalization Service within the Homeland Security Department when it should have remained under the Attorney General at Justice.  No adjudicator can focus on eligibility for benefits when the mission and message of homeland security is that if there is the slightest, even phantasmagorical, doubt, keep people out.

Thus, we see the penchant for adjudicator rejection by any means necessary at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and at U.S. consular posts abroad of worthy immigration-benefits requests.  It matters not if the means are pretextual, circuitous, dilatory or disingenuous. Any boilerplate Request for Evidence, Denial, Refusal or Revocation based on spurious grounds will do.  The Congressionally-induced and media-generated perception of pervasive fraud as a straw-man for delay and refusal likewise will suffice.  Hypocrisy, thus, is salved by the false ointment of feigned patriotism. 

Real patriotism, in my view, would bear in mind these anti-Malkinesque messages, also found on Twitter:

@USConGenChennaiUSConsulate Chennai

#Obama: We remember that among the nearly 3,000 innocent people lost that day were hundreds of citizens from more than 90 nations. #911 

@USConGenChennaiUSConsulate Chennai

In other words, we as a nation must heed the "Call to Courage" and "Reclaim . . . Our Liberties," as the ACLU reports.  Yes, of course, we must perform all manner of security checks, fully and efficiently, thoughtfully scrutinize all immigration benefits requests for compliance with law in good faith, and keep out the dangerous and undeserving. 

But never tie the tourniquets so tightly that you cut off our limbs. The torch-bearing Lady Liberty, who lights the Golden Door, must never become an amputee.

I think that . . . there's no doubt about the seriousness of the problem . . . We have a cancer--within, close to the Presidency, that's growing. It's growing daily. It's compounding, it grows geometrically now because it compounds itself. 

[John] Dean [recapping] the history of the Watergate break-in and subsequent cover-up for . . . President [Nixon]. March 21, 1973

Perhaps only slightly less virulent than the Watergate variety, a cancer is spreading within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The malignancy began with the persistent refusal of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to fulfill its Congressionally appointed police mission under the Homeland Security Act (HSA). Beginning in 2003 ICE routinely turned a deaf ear to the pleas of USCIS adjudicators to pursue suspected immigration-benefits fraud. Frustrated that fraudsters were going unpunished, USCIS similarly ignored the HSA and created a unit, now elevated to a Directorate, known as Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS). 

The HSA's walling off of immigration-benefits adjudication (a task Congress assigned to USCIS) from immigration enforcement (the shared province of ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection [CBP]) reflected a conscious legislative decision.  Hearings in the late 1990s laid bare the longstanding problems of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) whose conflicting missions of enforcement and benefits had generated decades of immigration dysfunction. 

Afflicted with selective amnesia, however, Congress failed to rebuke ICE or USCIS for crossing the prescribed lines.  Instead, federal lawmakers fueled the mission-creep by larding FDNS with anti-fraud fees paid by businesses seeking immigration benefits for H-1B and L-1 workers.  The result has been that FDNS, staffed with 700 officers and an untolled number of private investigators, has conducted tens of thousands of "site visits" at business organizations and religious institutions throughout the country. 

An August 24 New York Law Journal article, co-authored by Ted Chiappari and me, available here, describes what can go wrong when FDNS site visits (which really should be called what they are, governmental investigations) are structured in a way to create merely an impression that the integrity of the immigration-benefits adjudication process is safeguarded when, in reality, the requirements for a meaningful and fair investigation are ignored.  As one truth-telling FDNS officer explained to the DHS Office of Inspector General (p.15): 

Congress has been told by FDNS that there is a bunch of fraud, so Congress is asking for the proof. [Headquarters] HQ FDNS is asking the field to find the fraud so it can be shown to Congress. And I sense HQ FDNS’ frustration with the field because we aren’t finding it…. Some of the leadership personnel have never been adjudicators, so they are completely out of touch with reality.

So why, then, do I liken the activities of FDNS to a spreading cancer?  Here goes:

1. Free Radicals.  FDNS, like the free radicals that damage healthy organisms, takes aggressive actions without regard to the well-being of the functioning corpus politicus.  FDNS has not published a notice in the Federal Register allowing public comment on how it conducts investigations of the H-1B and L-1 visa categories and has never undertaken a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis to determine the impact of these investigations on small businesses. 
2. Vulnerable Victims. FDNS through its unannounced site visits invades the premises of unsuspecting and unprepared petitioning organizations. These on-site interrogations, akin to fishing expeditions, are not based on probable cause that a violation of the immigration laws has occurred; nor are they supported by a judicial search warrant.  FDNS provides no prior notice of the investigation to attorneys whom the agency knows are representing the sponsor or the foreign beneficiary.  The records FDNS asks to inspect and the individuals it seeks to interrogate are often, quite legitimately, at other locations; yet the investigators do not allow an opportunity to summon the records or the persons or reconvene at a later date.  Instead, its officers merely write a report that outlines "suspicious" circumstances. 
3. Voracious Behavior. Like a spreading cancer, FDNS breaks down healthy structures. Its investigative techniques flout existing USCIS regulations which prescribe that if the agency desires additional information or testimony it must send a written request for evidence or schedule an interview at a USCIS office.
4. Toxic Effects. Like a cancer, the growing influence of FDNS is debilitating the adjudication process by impairing customer service, speed of adjudication, and predictability of outcome, as last year's internal revolt at the California Service Center and the ongoing opposition of USCIS adjudicators to headquarters policies reflect. FDNS has arrogated to itself a policing function, rightly the role of ICE under the HSA, that is at cross purposes, just like at the old bipolar INS, to the core function of USCIS -- the rendering of a decision, based on the evidence of record, to approve or deny a request for a particular immigration benefit.
5. Surgery and Radiation.  While cancer as yet has not been cured, medical science often succeeds in causing a state of remission.  Doctors typically do this by means of surgery and radiation. So too with FDNS.  Congress or the President should excise this alien growth from the benefits-adjudication process. It should also apply irradiation prophylactics to prevent a recurrence of anti-fraud tumors within USCIS.   To the degree that purgatives are required to remove harmful impurities and maintain the health and integrity of our U.S. immigration system, they should be exclusively of the ICE-y variety.

John Dean's words about Watergate and its cancerous effects could just as readily be applied to the pernicious behaviors of FDNS:  "We have a cancer . . . that's growing. It's growing daily. It's compounding, it grows geometrically now because it compounds itself."  Just as Watergate posed a threat to constitutional government, FDNS is dealing a body-blow to the Fourth Amendment's protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures."  Cut it out.

Credibility is the cornerstone of reputation.  That's why, despite the shock and awe that regular readers of NationOfImmigrators.com may experience, this blogger (who sees immigration dysfunction virtually everywhere, especially under the Obama Administration) now heartily applauds recent actions of two immigration agencies within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) -- ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services). 

As suggested below and in a Bender's Immigration Bulletin Podcast I recorded on June 18 at the 2011 American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) annual conference in San Diego, Directors, Alejandro Mayorkas of USCIS and John Morton of ICE, as well as the President and DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, must be commended for taking significant steps to improve the administration of immigration justice (and along the way help the economy).

Mr. Mayorkas, to a far greater degree than any USCIS Director or legacy INS Commissioner in the last 30 years, expresses sincere respect for the rule of law.  He understands and requires compliance with the obligation of his agency's personnel to apply statutory immigration law in good faith as written and adhere to precedent decisions and national policies.   Mr. Mayorkas has brought the dispassion and intelligence of a lawyers' lawyer to USCIS, making changes based on reason and law, without favoring any person or interest, and committing to a policy of justice and equality of treatment and access.  (For any who may doubt or challenge my assertion, check out two sessions of the AILA conference in which Mr. Mayorkas offered his views [CD Nos. 17 & 86, purchase required]. If you think I routinely gush over the statements of USCIS officials at AILA conferences, disabuse yourself by checking out this prior rant.])

Mr. Morton -- despite a vote of no confidence by the ICE labor union -- has chosen to exercise leadership.  He has released two significant policy memos encouraging his officers to exercise  prosecutorial discretion, based on a 19-factor analysis, in favor of low-priority immigration violators and victims and witnesses of crime, and against perpetrators of violence and other serious felonies.

Most immigrants' rights groups chastised Mr. Morton, however, for not having gone far enough.  They attack ICE for not surrendering on the star-crossed program known as Secure Communities that has ensnared and deported far more petty immigration violators than hardened criminals. 

On the other hand, the nonpartisan Immigration Policy Center and AILA, the national immigration bar association, have lauded the new prosecutorial-discretion (PD) memos as positive moves.  They argue persuasively that in the absence of comprehensive immigration reforms which would align America's broken and wobbly immigration system with our national interests, and in an era of limited resources, the memos reflect a leadership decision to apply "smart enforcement" policies.  Smart enforcement, as the memos articulate, ensures that ICE's officers on the ground make individualized determinations of eligibility for prosecutorial discretion. 

Noncitizens whose personal circumstances, immigration history and foreseeable path to legal status cause them to rank low on the enforcement-priorities list -- the memos declare -- should be given deferred action.  Deferred action, in turn, makes them eligible for a work permit.  On the other side of the PD equation, individuals with particularly unsavory backgrounds or with rap sheets suggesting that they are dangerous to the communities should be fast-tracked on the due-process train headed for a removal hearing.  (One less understood but welcome aspect of the memos is that now an ICE attorney can set aside any Notice to Appear that he or she determines would involve an individual who is better suited for deferred action than a removal hearing, thereby freeing up precious judicial and executive resources to remove highly undesirable or dangerous noncitizens.)

Despite the deserving plaudits at the top of USCIS and ICE, it remains to be seen whether these interim, though important, initiatives will bear fruit.  Will the line officers and supervisors of each agency embrace their leaders' moves?  Or, as is perhaps more likely, will they engage in passive-aggressive behavior, palace intrigue and heel-dragging? 

Given the ICE union's condemnation of Mr. Morton and his policy memos (and their probable unwillingness to excersise conscientious compassion), as well as the resistance of some within USCIS to Mr. Mayorkas' commitment to the rule of law, the stakeholder community must apply its own leverage.  Here are a few things insiders and outsiders can and should do:

1. What Get's Measured and Rewarded Gets Done.  ICE must take steps to collect metrics on requests for prosecutorial discretion and individual ICE officer decisions.  The agency must make sure that it receives sufficient raw data to determine whether decisions on discretion align with ICE's national enforcement priorities.  For officers who persist in repeatedly routing objectively deserving cases to the immigration courts rather than to deferred action status, appropriate warnings and discipline should ensue.  Those, however, who instead apply the PD policy within its spirit and letter should receive ICE's approbation and career promotion. 
2. The Sunlight Brand of Disinfectant. DREAM Act supporters and others with favorable immigration equities should mount a grass-roots campaign to pressure ICE to publish meaningful data on the agency's actual exercise of prosecutorial discretion or enforcement.  To make this happen, community-based organizations (CBOs) should campaign to encourage individuals requesting prosecutorial discretion to waive personal privacy over key data fields that correspond with the worthy and adverse factors in their individual cases. If such waivers are coupled with the requesting parties' insistence that the decisions be released, then CBOs, the public and the media would know whether or not the PD policy is working. Congress can also make sure through its oversight function that reliable data is made available for all to see.
3. USCIS Must Issue Its Own PD memos. ICE holds no monopoly on discretion.  As legacy INS Commissioner, Doris Meissner, made clear in 2000, immigration adjudicators also have power to show leniency in deserving cases.  Mr. Mayorkas should formally instruct all USCIS officials that they too will be held accountable if they waste precious resources issuing burdensome requests for evidence and notices of intention to revoke or deny petitions or applications where a wise exercise of discretion under existing USCIS regulations would otherwise fairly resolve the case.  There should be no more spitting-on-the-sidewalk rulings placing otherwise law-abiding foreign citizens "out-of-status" who seek immigration benefits. A fairly administered PD policy could create immigration miracle cures that allow USCIS to forgive minor visa missteps.
4. You Get What You Pay For. Immigration notarios and unlicensed consultants (notwithstanding the commendable federal campaign to eradicate them) will no doubt continue to harm unrepresented immigrants by claiming that prosecutorial discretion is the new way to obtain work permission. Because there is no government form to request PD, however, the myriad immigration form-preparer outfits cannot legally represent persons seeking PD.  Only "accredited representatives" and lawyers in good standing may do so.  The business and nonprofit communities should therefore provide funding to lawyers (in compliance with ethics rules) so that well-documented and deserving PD requests with a good chance of success are submitted. Employers and labor unions who have tussled of late over the Obama Administration's "silent raid" policy should instead cooperate and identify/assist loyal and deserving workers with legal-fee-subsidized PD requests. 
5. Oppose Hypocrisy.  PD is not "back-door amnesty." No doubt House Judiciary Committee Chair Lamar Smith dislikes eating the words he wrote in 1999: "The principle of prosecutorial discretion is well established."  He also knows that the votes are not there to roll back smart enforcement or override an assured Presidential veto of any such measure.  Don't let Rep. Smith and his ilk get away with any false claims or ill-advised policy reversals.
6. Oppose Hate.  Immigration restrictionists are not pleased with the PD memos and will do whatever they can to attack any discernible trend to exercise discretion favorably.  The antidote to hate is the telling of truthful narratives by deserving persons who are allowed through PD to pursue, however tentatively, the American Dream. So, stakeholders, tell the truthful stories of honest people striving for a chance to make it in America and allow prosecutorial discretion to flourish. 

* * *

At least until our politicians begin to act like leaders who value country over power, let us hope that the new memos and the new direction signaled by DHS allow a meaningful chance for American justice to prevail against the insensate mob. 

The U.S. Supreme Court freed a herd of immigration "elephants [hiding] in a mousehole" on May 26. That's when five Justices used a four-word exception to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) -- an act which, among its extensive provisions, banned the employment of foreign citizens whom the employer knows lack work permission -- to trample the immigration landscape. The majority ruled, based on the exception, that IRCA is not the final or sole word on the extent of punishment for unauthorized employment. 

Relying on an IRCA exception for "licensing and similar laws," the 5-3 majority decided that Arizona may use the threat to revoke a business license as a means to punish AZ employers for the unauthorized hiring of foreigners and to require all the state's public and private employers to enroll in the Feds' E-Verify online work-clearance database. 

Among the dissenters, Justice Sonia Sotomayor challenged the use of this squib of an IRCA exception as a means for the majority to undermine the "carefully constructed [and] uniform federal scheme for determining [unauthorized employment]." She cited an earlier case which observed that Congress "does not . . . hide elephants in mouseholes." (Ironically and perhaps poetically just, all of the Justices in the majority had been appointed by presidents of the Republican party, whose avatar is the pachyderm.)

What does the decision, U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, mean for large and small employers?  Here are my predictions (I welcome any comments or critiques below or on my Twitter page): 

1.  Expect that mandatory E-Verify will spread to more states. As shown in this link, states are all over the map on their divergent requirements concerning E-Verify. Some -- like AZ, SC and MS -- require it of all employers.  Others limit it to public entities and state contractors.  The Supreme Court's decision essentially green lights the states to regulate facets of immigration compliance that fall within traditional state police powers. The only requirement is that the state law find a connection to the broad police power over licensing. In essence, what was largely an exclusively federal domain, will now expand -- with the Court's blessing -- into the inner workings of most businesses. Expect state and city micro-management of immigration to the Nth degree. 

2.  Expect some states to require E-Verify use as to current workers. As many states rush to enact laws mandating E-Verify, it would not be surprising if one or more extend its scope.  Except for certain federal contractors and subs, E-Verify may not now be used to verify the work eligibility of current employees.  While the extension of E-Verify at the state level to current workers would technically violate the terms of the E-Verify Memorandum of Understanding that employers must sign, such a stretch would not be a surprise.  Consider Utah's recent legislation which adopted a guest worker program notwithstanding that -- at least until the Whiting decision -- the authorization to grant work permission had been seen as exclusively a federal power. Note as well that Florida's governor has issued an executive order expressly encouraging the state's employers to use E-Verify to check the work status of current employees.

3.  Expect higher rates of discrimination claims.  The dissenters in Whiting predict that employers will follow the path of seemingly least resistance by becoming hyper-vigilant in inspecting job applicants' documents of identity and work eligibility while finding subtle or overt ways to resist hiring persons who look or sound foreign or demanding to see specific documents or more documents than legally required.  Although the majority noted that such discriminatory acts are already prohibited at the federal level, the likelihood is that the immigration agency charged with antidiscrimination prosecution and enforcement will be understaffed and short on resources to deal with the anticipated flood of complaints of unfair or illegal practices.    

4.  Expect more court battles over the extraterritorial reach of state immigration laws.  What happens when poorly phrased state immigration laws come into contact with multi-state employers? Must a multi-state employer use E-Verify only as to its AZ new hires, or does AZ's E-Verify law require that company to use the online system as to new employees nationwide? What will courts decide if a company chartered in AZ loses its license to do business in that state, and as a result, is disqualified to maintain its licenses to engage in business in other states?  These are but a few of the foreseeable claims likely to congest the state and federal courts as state immigration laws proliferate after Whiting.

5.  Expect a public backlash over state enforcement of the immigration laws.  The devastating tornadoes in Missouri and Alabama likely caused the loss or destruction of many U.S. citizens' documents of identity and work permission. When such citizens try to pick up their lives by moving to other states (where mandatory E-verify is in force), how will they prove their right to work?  Such citizens are not likely to go gently or quietly into the good night. They will scream to high heaven, and the media will listen and publicize their complaints.  Other citizens, though not facing the effects of natural calamities, will likewise be erroneously rejected by E-Verify, as the National Immigration Law Center predicted last April in testimony before Congress. They too will rise in protest if denied employment to which they are entitled with jobs already hard enough to find in the current economy.  

6.  Expect some states to back away from immigration enforcement and instead seek federal waivers for immigration benefits. Just yesterday, Republican Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan, perhaps signalling a trend in the opposite direction, expressed his opposition to an AZ-style immigration enforcement bill, noting that it would be "divisive" and bad for business.  As noted above and at length in this blog before, Utah has passed legislation creating a guest worker visa program (that will require a Federal waiver).   

7.  Expect that states will seek more snitch visas or favorable discretion for stool pigeons from the federal government.  The "S" visa category (what we in the trade call the Snitch Visa) allows any state or local law enforcement official to seek special immigration benefits, including a work permit, to allow a foreign citizen to participate as a witness in a criminal prosecution.  Federal immigration authorities can also exercise prosecutorial discretion and grant work permission at the request of a state or local police agency or prosecutor.  In states where immigration policing is a high priority, just as with the justly maligned Secure Communities program, criminal prosecutions under state immigration laws will likely generate requests for special privileges and leniency to foreign workers who agree to rat out alleged immigration violations of their employers.

8. Expect a battle royal in Congress over mandatory federal E-Verify. The business and pro-immigrant communities will not take lying down the likely GOP push to make E-Verify mandatory for all employers nationally.  While this push, if enacted, would take the wind out of the states' sails, opposition to the move would point to the persistently high rates of false positives and negatives in E-Verify and the budget busting consequences of a national mandate.  

9. Expect busier days ahead for immigration lawyers.  Notwithstanding that the demand for H-1B visas this year has been underwhelming, lawyers practicing immigration law have reason to be hopeful that business will pick up.  The already mind-boggling complexity of federal immigration law will become more complicated, perhaps by a factor of 50, as the states get into the act. This quantum leap doesn't take into account the cities and regional governments that may have politicians, even now, planning a Barletta-like push for fame and higher office by espousing "mouse-that-roared" immigration ordinances.

10.  Expect that Congress or the President will act. Before we reach the point of proliferating and conflicting 50-state and countless-municipal "solutions" to America's dysfunctional immigration laws, this blogger -- always a glass-half-full type -- envisions that statesman-like behavior or public outcries will cause action at the federal level to end the nonsense. Businesses cannot function, and lawfully-authorized American citizens and residents cannot find jobs, if we balkanize our immigration polcies. I say, fingers crossed, that cooler heads will prevail. 

A trip abroad, as I took recently for a speaking gig, often allows intellectual curiosity to gallivant more freely.  It also provides opportunities to question accepted truths or cause germinating notions to blossom into convincing arguments, especially if serendipity or divine providence creates chance meetings with strangers.  These thoughts crystallized after my return as I read Peggy Noonan’s op-ed piece in the April 23-24 Wall St. Journal, “What the World Sees in America.”  She wrote: 

[There] are . . . reasons for a new skepticism about America’s just role and responsibilities in the world in 2011.  One has to do with the burly, muscular, traditional but at this point not fully thought-through American assumption that our culture is not only superior to most, but is certainly better in all ways than the cultures of those we seek to conquer.  We have always felt pride in our nation’s ways, and pride isn’t all bad.  But conceit is, and it’s possible we’ve grown as conceited as we’ve become culturally careless.

Which brings me to the point of this post. I need to debunk a curious and obscure creation of the federal courts, a particularly perverse form of "American Exceptionalism” (itself, a distasteful term which I must flavor with a boulder’s worth of granulated salt to get it down the gullet).  The construct of the federal courts that I’m about to describe rests on tottering and false assumptions.  These are (a) that administrative agencies, in particular, federal immigration agencies, possess superior expertise in interpreting the enacted laws which they administer, and (b) that therefore courts should abdicate responsibility for interpreting these laws and defer to the agencies’ presumably learned prowess in the art of statutory interpretation. 

(Before challenging the courts’ concoction, I note my displeasure with the conceit – pun intended – of American Exceptionalism, most often a proxy for undeserved arrogance or fact-free opinion.  Yes, in times past we have shown ourselves to be a great nation, as, for example, the Marshall Plan, created by our forbears, that saved Europe after World War II – a laurel on which today’s younger Americans undeservedly rest – or the Civil Rights Movement, which planted seeds that allowed a biracial American to become the nation’s president.  Also a feature more of the past than the present is America’s tradition as a welcoming nation of immigrants, a form of Exceptionalism that I unhesitatingly extol.) 

The high- (or, in my view, low-) water mark for judicial deference to presumed administrative-agency expertise is the Supreme Court’s Brand X decision, an aptly titled case for TV viewers of 1960s-era commercials who know that the name refers to a decidedly inferior product. Brand X held that the federal courts must yield to an administrative agency’s legal interpretation if the words of a statute are ambiguous.  As Carl Sandburg taught, the words of statutes, when read by trained legal and judicial minds, virtually always can be interpreted as ambiguous.  Thus, the courts are under orders to let the agencies call the shots. 

So, do immigration agents in the Departments of State, Labor, Homeland Security and Justice really possess special expertise, greater than the courts, in divining the elusive intent of Congress whenever our federal legislature has passed immigration laws?  My 30-plus years as an immigration lawyer compel me to shout a “NO” answer. 

Here’s why. America’s immigration agencies are silos, each spewing forth legal assertions from their prescribed parcels of the expansive turf that is the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).  The Labor Department (DOL) may claim arguable expertise with immigration-related laws protecting the wages and working conditions of American and foreign workers, but it (like the other agencies, as I’ve noted in a prior post) has an axe to grind, rather than a mandate of blind justice in administering immigration laws.  DOL deserves no presumption of expertise about the multiple forms of statutory eligibility needed to procure immigration benefits (the domain of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [USCIS] within the Department of Homeland Security [DHS]) or to obtain immigrant or nonimmigrant visas (the province of the State Department operating under a Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] with DHS).  The converse is also true, as USCIS readily admits. 

Similarly, two DHS police units – Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) – are charged, respectively, with removing or excluding foreigners who have violated or are likely to break the immigration laws.  Strangely, however, these federal cops play a comparatively small role in declaring which activities fall within or outside the statutorily complex principles of lawful “immigration status” and valid employment authorization.  These instead are functions that USCIS (more or less) discharges concurrently with a variety of Justice Department units (the Executive Office of Immigration Review, comprised of the Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals, along with the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer and the Office of Special Counsel for Unfair Immigration-Related Employment Practices [OSC]). 

As post-9/11 “connect-the-dots” studies and Congressional hearings have taught us, and as most immigration lawyers already knew, the several federal immigration bureaucracies tend to protect their turf, and often distrust and positively dislike and disrespect their counterparts in sister agencies.  Worse yet, they typically prefer a cloistered existence rather than one that reaches out across the Executive Branch in patriotic efforts to harmonize and declare in unison a reliable set of interpretations of America’s immigration laws and policies. 

Lately, seasoned immigration observers have noticed a kind of Hatfields-and-McCoys détente in which interagency MOUs proliferate (as illustrated by the DOL-DHS MOU, the USCIS-OSC MOU, the DHS-State Department MOU and the impossible-to-exit and falsely promoted ICE Secure Communities MOU). Close readings of these MOUs reflect a desire by the various agencies to seek reciprocal non-molestation pacts and avoid tripping over one another, or to gull state and local authorities, rather than to provide harmony and transparency in the interpretation of the immigration laws. 

These types of governmental MOUs were never mentioned in my high school civics class, or in any course I took on administrative law.  They are an affront to Congressional power and a testament to legislative lassitude over immigration.  Such bureaucratic faux-contracts, when coupled with the fawning deference ordered by the Supremes in Brand X, resemble more a French farce about institutional asylees who assume governmental roles a la the 1966 film King of Hearts, than a just, reliable and orderly exercise of federal power in the immigration sphere.  As Peggy Noonan concluded in her op-ed: 

The whole world is . . . judging what it sees [of America], and likely, in some serious ways, finding us wanting.

And being human, they may be judging us with a small, extra edge of harshness for judging them and looking down on them. 

We have work to do at home, on our culture and in our country. 

Few observers predicted the profundity of global political changes in the first quarter of 2011.  

The Middle East, still the source of most of the world's energy, has witnessed civilian protestors toppling despots and prompting autocrats to invite foreign-state and mercenary armies to quell peaceful demonstrations and slaughter citizens. Libya's never-predictable Muammar el-Qaddafi, having nearly routed indigenous rebels centered around Benghazi, faces a UN-authorized no-fly zone and aerial attacks mounted at the behest of the Arab League, an organization now critical of air assaults that may provoke a full-blown war.      

Japan, no longer the world's second largest economy, is shaken by a 9.0 earthquake and tsunami that caused the deaths of probably 10,000 or more citizens and devastated the northeastern countryside. The resulting radiation fallout from severely damaged nuclear plants now contaminates the food supply and threatens public health. The devastation has also rocked the nuclear energy industry and called into question whether fission power will replace fossil fuels anytime soon.

With these events capturing public attention, President Obama is in Brazil, the worlds seventh-largest economy, the global leader in sustainable bio-fuels and ninth-largest oil producer with huge off-shore reserves.  The President hopes to return home with business deals that produce American jobs and secure access to less volatile sources of energy.  Whether or not he succeeds on this trip, he could not have failed to hear the sharp criticism leveled against American policy by Brazil's President, Dilma Rousseff, who chided the U.S. for its past "empty rhetoric."  As The New York Times reported, a "deeper relationship [with Brazil]," she said, must "be a construct amongst equals."

The two presidents failed, however, to reach an agreement that would allow Brazilians to enter the U.S. as business visitors or tourists under the Visa Waiver Permanent Program. Nor did President Obama endorse Brazil's call for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, although on his state visit to India -- according to the NYT -- he "lent support to that country’s hopes for a permanent seat."

In this world of ever-erupting turbulence, a functioning immigration system would serve to promote America's foreign policy and economic interests, while honoring its tradition as a nation hospitable to hard-working immigrants.  Beyond securing the border against terrorists, criminals and ne'er-do-wells, an efficient and effectual immigration system would encourage investment, innovation and job-creation.  It would provide orderly systems for family reunification and refuge for the persecuted.  It would also bear marks of humility and wisdom, recognizing that our diversity is our greatest strength and that our actions abroad often stoke the push factors propelling and compelling people to breach our borders.

The present immigration system in the U.S. merely pays lip service to these objectives while suffering from malign neglect and willful meanspiritedness. Despite a 1986 federal law prohibiting employers from hiring workers whom they know or should know lack the legal right to work, the agencies charged with enforcement have yet to agree on the definition of "employment." Notwithstanding a 1996 law punishing illegal overstays, these same agencies continue to split hairs over the distinction between violation of nonimmigrant "status" and "unlawful presence," have yet to publish a rule defining what it even means to "maintain [legal] status," and still assert that a foreign citizen can be work-authorized yet have no immigration status. 

Most of us in this nation of immigrators bewail the system but do little to insist on adult conversations among lawmakers that might lead to pragmatic and humane solutions. In a time of focus on deficit reduction, we want more border security but would never tolerate a tax increase to pay for it.

Yet the candle-lighters among us, who'd rather not just curse the darkness, see a few glimmers, of luminosity. 

Business leaders in Utah, Colorado, Nebraska, Florida, Kansas, Oklahoma and, yes, even Arizona, have beaten back efforts to make state immigration laws still more draconian.  A leading labor union blasts the Administration's senseless and expensive immigration enforcement policy, while the Organization of American States faults us for inhumane immigrant detention practices.  A Tea Party leader -- Dick Armey -- says that if necessary to care for his babies he would break the law, ironically, on essentially the same grounds that spur unauthorized migrants to cross the border looking for work.  Hispanic members of the GOP propose a comprehensive and largely workable 12-point plan for immigration reform. Mainstream reporters such as NBCs Tom Brokaw are beginning to focus attention on America's brain drain -- the loss of talented foreign workers who've become so fed up with the quota backlogs, visa-screening delays and hassles on reentry to the U.S. that they take the education we provided them and leave to compete with the U.S. from their native lands. A new Start-Up Visa bill has emerged (but not as user-friendly as the U.K.'s) to woo foreign investors.

Although movement on immigration reform in Utah is heartening, the country cannot have the states enacting 50 versions of foreign policy or an equal number of immigration codes.  Only the federal government is positioned to steer a unified course on immigration. We can start by asking why the prosperous and rapidly growing BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) are shut out from the E-2 treaty-based nonimmigrant visa category.  This entrepreneurial visa allows foreign investors from select treaty countries to start U.S. businesses quickly with whatever minimum amount of capital would ordinarily be sufficient to begin operations and start hiring, rather than invest the minimum $500,000 and create the ten jobs needed for the investor green card, the EB-5, with its costly tax consequences as the added price for permanent residency.

America has waited too long to revamp its immigration laws.  The usual three pillars of comprehensive reform (border security, worksite enforcement and legalization for the unauthorized in our midst) are not enough to make America globally competitive and enticing.  How many more whirlwinds of global change must jostle and buffet us before our leaders in Washington realize that we are falling from our perch as top dog?  Economic prosperity and job creation must be our prime immigration policy, with pragmatism and humane treatment closely in tow.  The sane voices must grow louder and more insistent. Outspoken business and union leaders, and one Tea Party icon, coupled with contrary-to-type Hispanic conservatives, and constant prodding from new economic powerhouses abroad -- all are a promising start.

The weather outside is frightful. Large chunks of hail are beating the earth in the form of "Notices of Inspection" (NOIs), delivered by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  These NOIsome ICE chunks are hitting the doorsteps of more and more U.S. employers (1,000 have just landed). Even in unlikely San Francisco I understand that at least two large employers are shivering as they prepare to respond with loads of Forms I-9 (Employment Eligibility Verifications) on past and present employees and other requested business records.

In the past, large employers adopted a Goldilocks approach when seeking shelter from the storm.  Businesses of heft and breadth realized that the risk of employer sanctions had historically remained small since the former INS mostly audited small or mid-size employers, and ICE, the successor agency, preferred high-visibility raids over the more tedious inspection of immigration paperwork.  Thus, large employers pursued a strategy of "just right":  Neither so much vigilance over I-9 compliance practices that might risk an antidiscrimination charge, nor so little diligence that might trigger a raid. 

All that has changed with the Obama Administration's focus on civil enforcement through paperwork inspections, followed predictably by fines, orders to terminate unauthorized workers, and criminal prosecution of businesses and individuals the Justice Department considers flagrant immigration lawbreakers.  

Given the change in enforcement strategy, large employers (and those of lesser size) can no longer rely on a Goldilocks approach, as Ted Chiappari and I explain in "Goldilocks' Lessons for Dealing with Bearish Immigration Police," published on February 23 in The New York Law Journal.  Our "Goldilocks" article offers detailed precautions employers of all size should consider immediately to mitigate potential ICE-storm damage: 

1. Review  Immigration Compliance. Engage an experienced immigration law firm (other than the one used to prepare and submit the employer's immigration petitions and applications) to conduct a full-fledged 100% audit of all I-9s for current and former employees (including those who joined as a result of corporate acquisitions) and evaluate all other immigration-compliance obligations. 

2. Decide How the Auditor Should Present the Report.  Consider the pros and cons of an oral versus a written audit report.  An oral report advises management without creating what may be an unhelpful paper trail, if not all of counsel's curative recommendations are followed; whereas a written report, submitted to ICE if and when the company is audited, demonstrates good-faith compliance. 

3. Expect Bad News and Deal with It. Even the most persnickety employers who try their darndest to winnow out unauthorized workers are likely to discover that some segment of the workforce has no right to work and must be terminated while the I-9s of others must still be corrected.  Careless employers will fare worse.  Consider conducting the audit in phases, tranches or by worksites so that, if workers must be terminated, replacements can be hired or engaged through a temp agency, and then trained, all of which can occur in less disruptive ways than if a sizable roster of unauthorized employees were fired at once.  Also, be sensitive to the possibility that discrimination and wrongful-discharge claims or union grievances may be lodged, and behave in ways to minimize harm from those forms of employee blowback.

4. Develop and Enforce an Immigration Compliance Policy. Announce to employees and the world your company's immigration policy, namely, that you hire only authorized workers, do not violate antidiscrimination rules, and appropriately discipline those who fail to comply.  Consider other best practices to foster that central policy of maintaining an authorized-only, discrimination-free workplace, maybe even some best practices from IMAGE.

5. Place Controls on Employment-Based Immigration Sponsorship. Make sure the decision to petition for work-visa or green-card benefits on behalf of each foreign worker is justified in writing under objectively fair criteria.  Protect against cronyism.  Centralize due-diligence and signature authority concerning the factual representations made in all immigration submissions.  Require systematic record-keeping and compliance with other obligations such as posting and good-faith recruiting procedures.

6. Add Immigration Protections to Vendor Contracts and Manage Vendor Conduct.  Avoid the risk of deemed co-employment and of being tainted by the possible immigration violations of vendors and consultants.  Make sure immigration-related attestations made for the benefit of vendor employees are vetted for accuracy and that vendors are contractually required to adopt and enforce their own immigration compliance policies, with contractual penalties imposed for noncompliance.

7. Strengthen Global Mobility Management.  It's not just about complying with U.S. immigration laws.  Foreign countries' immigration statutes can be just as nasty when the rules are violated.  Other laws outside of the immigration domain, such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the new United Kingdom anti-bribery legislation, taxation, employee benefits, employment laws, and conflicts of law, as well as European Union and national regulations relating to privacy and electronic-data transmission, must also be honored.  Bad immigration press and sanctions in one country may spark a storm of brand damage around the world.

In short, Goldilocks' behavior (lying dormant in a domain where cold-hearted ursine characters are likely to frequent) is no longer safe for prudent employers.  Beware the ICE Bears.

An October 14 New York Times article by Nina Bernstein “A Contest of Suffering, With the U.S. as a Prize” sheds light on humanitarian parole, the authority vested in the Secretary of Homeland Security, to grant foreign citizens entry to the United States for “urgent humanitarian reasons.” The article reports that since January, 2000 only about 20% of the 6,718 requests received for humanitarian parole were approved. According to Michael W. Gilhooley, a spokesperson for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency deciding requests for humanitarian parole, each request is considered independently by two ICE officers and then their (presumably collective) decision is reviewed by an ICE supervisor. The Times article, though helpful in shedding light on the parole authority, does not address an important legal question. Why, after all, does ICE – an immigration enforcement agency – exercise the Secretary’s authority within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to adjudicate requests for the immigration benefit of humanitarian parole? By law – § 452(b)(5) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 – all decisions on immigration-benefits requests previously adjudicated by the now-abolished Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) must be decided by another DHS unit, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

The USCIS website describes the procedure for requesting humanitarian parole, and provides a USCIS form (Form I-131) whose instructions direct the applicant to send the request to:

USCIS Office of International Affairs Parole and Humanitarian Assistance Branch 425 "I" Street, N.W. Attn.: ULLICO Building, 3rd Floor Washington, DC 20536

So why does DHS give the public the impression that USCIS will adjudicate the application when ICE’s Office of International Affairs, a police agency, in fact makes the decision? The delegation of humanitarian parole decision-making power is particularly strange in light of the legislative history of the HSA. In enacting the HSA, Congress intentionally divided the former INS into separate enforcement and benefits branches in order to avoid the inherent conflict of interest that would otherwise arise when cops must choose between border protection and applications for immigration benefits. The conflict involved in the enforcement-minded ICE being tasked with exercising humanitarian compassion is readily seen in the mission statement for ICE’s Office of International Affairs (OIA):

Mission The Office of International Affairs (OIA) is the overseas investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). OIA works closely with all elements of ICE, and serves as a key component in the President’s international crime control strategy.

Roles and Responsibilities ICE's Office of International Affairs provides operational and programmatic management of ICE attachés at foreign embassies and consulates worldwide;

OIA also coordinates and supports all foreign investigative activities of ICE. OIA works with foreign counterparts in combating transnational crimes involving national security, financial, smuggling, illegal arms exports, forced child labor, child pornography, human trafficking, intellectual property rights, commercial and immigration fraud violations.

OIA assists host-country counterparts in the development and implementation of legislation and regulations; provides training to foreign officials; responds to government and public requests for trade, travel and business information; supports the implementation of treaties, agreements and international cooperative programs.

Acquiring and developing intelligence related to cross-border criminal activity is also important to OIA's mission. [Bolding in original.]

This fox-in-the-henhouse conflict of interest is also apparent from a look at OIA’s positioning on ICE’s organizational chart as a unit of the Office of Investigations. Yet elsewhere on the pages of the ICE site, OIA meekly acknowledges its humanitarian parole authority in text nestled within its power to issue entry documents to snitches and criminals:

The [unit known as] PHAB [the Parole and Humanitarian Assistance Bureau] supports [ICE’s] Border Security Mission by bringing to the United States criminal informants, wanted criminals and other inadmissible aliens in an organized and carefully monitored manner using the Secretary’s parole authority. They are responsible for authorizing significant public benefit paroles in accordance with the Significant Public Benefit (SPBP) Protocol, an interagency clearing process.

Is this blogger’s concern about the power to decide humanitarian parole applications just a bureaucratic tempest in a teapot? No. When a dying U.S. citizen wants to have a final few days with a foreign relative from abroad, and the U.S. Consular Officer in the relative’s home country has denied a visitor’s visa, humanitarian parole is the only avenue. The Times article offers other heart-rending examples of initially denied applications for humanitarian parole:

Some involved pleas for temporary admission for medical reasons, like the Ecuadorean mother of a 6-year-old Bronx boy hit by a car and in a coma, who was at first refused a visa to come to her son's bedside, or the case of Federico Rodriguez, dying of kidney-related complications in New York, whose sister in El Salvador was at first denied a visa to come donate her kidney.

Other applicants, like Raisa, who has been formally adopted by her grandmother, were eligible to join close relatives in the United States for good. But because of backlogs, they were living out a damaging childhood.

In such a case last spring, a 5-year-old boy stuck since birth in an African refugee camp won humanitarian parole to join his family in Minnesota after a senator learned that his father, a Liberian refugee in the National Guard, faced deployment to Iraq.

Why should it take Congressional intervention to grant humanitarian parole? Why should the requests of deserving citizens for governmental compassion be denied by police officials when the legislature, in enacting the HSA, clearly intended that USCIS, the agency with benefits-adjudication expertise, make the call? On October 18, Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of DHS is slated to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on immigration reform. Before focusing on immigration reforms, perhaps the senators can ask Mr. Chertoff why his agency flouts the law as written and tasks police officers to exercise humanitarian compassion. Or perhaps the better question is whether ICEd compassion can ever be truly humanitarian.