Much has been written since April 17 when the bipartisan Gang of Eight senators introduced S. 744, a brobdingnagian immigration reform bill that overlays 844 pages of turgid text on top of the already gargantuan and complex Immigration and Nationality Act.  The Migration Policy Institute, the National Immigration Law Center, and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) have each offered a helpful analysis of the bill.  This legislative leviathan grew to 867 pages on April 30 with the substitution of a “managers’ amendment” (available here as revised and here as redlined, as well as here with AILA’s redlined section-by-section analysis released on May 1). 

Although most of the media focus has homed in on border security and the seemingly IED-laden roadway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, U.S. companies -- especially the General Counsel (GCs) who advise them -- are slated to be on the receiving end of shock and awe if the “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act,” or BESSIE MAE, as wags like to call it, ever becomes law.

As I explained in a recent article (penned before the managers’ amendment), “Senate Immigration Reform Bill Offers Surprises Galore for Employers,” BESSIE MAE presents American companies with a slew of opportunities and burdens.  Consider just a few:

• The H-1B visa quota will rise from 65,00 to 110,000, with a phased escalation clause pushing the quota as high as 180,000 per fiscal year, based on employer demand and the unemployment rate for “management, professional and related occupations.” Yet this Faustian gift will cost employers dearly in pre-hiring recruitment, higher filing fees, increased record-keeping, expanded enforcement authority for the Labor Department, and greater potential fines and penalties. 
• Similarly, managers and executives who may or may not become L-1A intracompany transferees would be allowed to enter the U.S. as business visitors for up to 90 days “to oversee and observe the United States operations of their related companies, . . . [and]  [e]stablish strategic objectives when needed,” while “employees of multinational corporations [may] enter . . . to observe the operations of a related United States company and participate in select leadership and development training activities . . .” Yet in return, employers lose the free hand heretofore available to devise creative incentives and bonuses for their inbound expatriate employees who now, like their H-1B brothers and sisters, must be paid the " prevailing wage" under the watchful eyes of the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS) of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
• In like manner, employers would be given immunity (none dare call it "amnesty") if they maintain on their payrolls workers who are undocumented immigrants but who express the intention to apply for the new Registered Provisional Immigrant status. Yet, enrollment in a veritable E-Verify on steroids will become mandatory for all employers, and the Form I-9 (Employment Eligibility Verification) will continue to be required.   Worse yet, any new hires who fail to receive confirmation of employment eligibility from E-Verify on the first try must continue to be paid, trained and employed while they pursue a host of new administrative hearing and appeal rights of indeterminate length.

Proactive GCs of corporate America should therefore make sure that their companies are ready for the tsunami of change that will sweep over the enterprise if BESSIE MAE or any equally unreasonable facsimile thereof makes it into the statute books.

The old way of managing immigration, as a backwater area of law relegated to Procurement, Recruiting, Human Resources, and Payroll Administration, or -- worse yet --  to foreign nationals seeking work visas who are encouraged or allowed to find a low-cost immigration lawyer to "help" the company, will no longer do.   Years back, it was sufficient to consider adopting tips from such articles as, "A Three-Point Immigration Manifesto For Chief Legal Officers And Outside Counsel," and “Global Mobility Management—A Primer for Chief Legal Officers and HR Executives.” Times since then, however, have changed.

To best manage risk, exploit opportunities and control costs across the enterprise while squeezing the most value out of limited resources, GCs must adopt a comprehensive plan of immigration portfolio management, whose key components should address a variety of essential concerns:

• Immigration-customized technology and tools.  Immigration Tech tools should include integrated dashboards (developed, prepared and maintained by external immigration counsel and a client-dedicated project management expert at the law firm) with "Single Sign-On" capability and screen views customized to the specific but differing needs of in-house counsel, and all other essential stakeholders within the enterprise. Access would therefore be instantly available to:   
  • an online collaboration tool using secure FTP extranet technology to exchange and logically organize immigration work product, thereby dispensing with the need to search for on-the-fly emails. 
  • a robust immigration case management system listing case status and key expiration dates for all employees on work visas or pursuing green cards,
  • user-customizable and standard reports showing deviations from internal policies and service level agreements with outside immigration counsel,
  • legal matter management, E-billing and performance analytics on immigration benefits procurement and compliance defense,
  • an "E-Room" library that houses documents which FDNS or other immigration enforcement personnel might demand to see on short notice such as H-1B public access folders, individual and multi-slot Labor Condition Applications, petitions and applications submitted to immigration agencies, recruiting and advertising materials required for immigrant and nonimmigrant work visa eligibility, vendor agreements with IT and business consulting firms that employ their own foreign workers onsite at company locations, and posting and nondisplacement attestations, and 
  • a consulting hotline and an online consulting log which serves as a knowledge-management repository for all responses to varying fact patterns, FAQs, memorandums and other oral or written guidance provided to the corporate client over time, with links to the contact information of the lawyer providing the guidance so that there is easy followup with a subject matter expert who can provide any new updates or more nuanced responses. 
• Key Immigration Performance Indicators. Metrics would be based on real-time data derived from Human Resource Information Systems that are linked and updated bi-directionally for use by internal recruiters and hiring personnel, and the business's outside immigration lawyers.
• True Partnering with Outside Counsel.  "Partnering" is a meaningless buzzword in too many law firms' pitch kits -- one tossed at chief procurement officers who claim to want quality and strategic counsel but are only willing to pay for commoditized immigration legal services offered by the lowest bidder. Real partnering looks more like this: 
  • It begins with a convergence process in which only one or at most two firms are selected after a carefully conceived request-for-proposal process is concluded, a process in which immigration lawyers come into corporate headquarters not to brag about their talents, but instead model what it would be like to work side-by-side with them to achieve the company's business mission while minimizing risks and controlling wasteful practices. 
  • The chosen law firm(s) would invest time, money and resources into a long-term relationship, offering all of the integrated legal services required in the immigration arena -- not just Johnny and Jane One-Note visa and green card services, but scalable immigration benefits-procurement assistance,  interdisciplinary immigration-compliance defense, federal court litigation and appellate law services, tax advice, U.S. and international employment law representation and export control law guidance -- all under one roof.
  • Immigration counsel would meet regularly and ad hoc as needed to evaluate the final immigration reform legislation, advocate for employer-friendly rulemaking, and map out action plans and task owners so that the enterprise is poised to pounce upon immigration opportunities with training programs and internal open-house forums for foreign nationals and managers, prepare Congressional outreach and media strategies, and eliminate or minimize old and new compliance risks.  Also included in these meetings would be an annual "Client 101" orientation program taught by in-house counsel for the external team of immigration lawyers, paralegals, project managers and administrative staff to learn all about the company and its culture and a periodic Client/Law-Firm Summit.
  • Immigration counsel would also provide benchmarking opportunities to help develop best practices based on the experience and wisdom of comparable businesses in similar industries and share knowledge and strategic thinking from other industry contacts with in-house counsel.
• Services would utilize the best principles of legal process innovation. Six Sigma, Lean Services, Voice of the Client, Scorecards, collaborative process mapping, stakeholder satisfaction surveys and other innovative practices would be employed to manage immigration compliance risks, measure performance metrics, reduce errors, speed cycle time, minimize costs and waste, and make sure that the corporate client becomes, and remains, an "immigration friendly company" to facilitate the hiring and retention of best-in-class talent.

* * *

No longer on hearing the word "immigration" should GCs be made to suffer that all-too-familiar form of queasiness which arises when an "alien" substantive-law problem lands on his or her desk.  Inoculation with a healthy dose of immigration portfolio management will provide GCs with immunity from the worst that the likes of BESSIE MAE can try to inflict on them.  So there's no reason to toss one's most recent meal.  Just take a prescription for immigration portfolio management and contact the most qualified immigration counsel to be found.

As Republicans join Democrats in contemplating reform of the nation's dysfunctional immigration system, the final line of the Pledge of Allegiance ("with liberty and justice for all") is the best place to start. 

Revitalizing our broken and outdated 20th Century immigration laws to respond to the needs of 21st Century America will turn in large part on how we face the challenge of persuading desirable foreign citizens to make our country their home. Coveted immigrants now enjoy an array of choice locales; they are lured by the wealth, opportunity and blandishments of competitor nations throughout the developed and developing world. 

While the U.S. has long been the most preferred destination, our national rose seems to have lost much of its bloom. For too many foreigners possessing the attributes and skills we need, America may be tempting but just too risky.  We have posted a "road closed" sign when we should be cleaning off the welcome mat. 

Why would any intelligent person or family take a chance on America if it means that every critical step along the way raises the prospect of disrespect, insult, suspicion, delay and rejection? Those are the sorry results of our archaic and unwelcoming Immigration and Nationality Act, passed as the law of the land in the 1950s McCarthy era, modestly refreshed in 1990, but then made more draconian in 1996, and since at least the turn of the century, administered by bureaucrats who've too often espoused an inhospitable "culture of no."  

America would be wise to transform our immigration laws in tangible ways that make manifest the Pledge's promise of justice and liberty for all.  Here, then, are several suggested reforms to the immigration laws (with more to follow in future posts) that would serve us well by serving the needs of desirable immigrants:

Be more respectful and stop treating visa applicants like suspects and liars. Eliminate the presumption in current law which says that every applicant for a nonimmigrant visa is presumed to want to remain in America permanently unless s/he proves otherwise to the satisfaction of a consular officer. The presumption is jingoistic and haughty, too often counter-factual, and in any case unhelpful in that it breeds ill will among would-be entrants.  Establish clear visa-eligibility requirements that must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence (a more likely than not standard), and maintain very strict security-clearance procedures.  In addition, videotaping all visa applicants while recording the voice of the consular officer would by itself enhance our security while likely improving the behavior and courtesy of interviewing officers.  Just as Mitt Romney learned that disrespectful urgings about self-deportation insulted the Latino community, "Ugly American" consular behaviors are a turn-off to those whom we would welcome.

Eliminate consular absolutism. No one -- not even someone as admired until recently as General David Petraeus -- is infallible.  Yet current law says that no government official, not the President or the Secretary of State or the Attorney General or any federal judge, can correct mistaken findings of fact made by a consular officer when deciding to refuse a visa application.  Justice for all means due process for all and it means that no one, not even consular officers, are above the law.  Congress should create a means of challenging consular visa refusals and visa revocations, especially where the rights of American companies and families are adversely affected.  The review process can begin with a pilot program covering all immigrant visas and nonimmigrant visas for investors and work-visa applicants, and then be expanded to cover additional categories.

Establish Due Process border protections. U.S. border inspectors at ports of entry possess extraordinary authority, including the power of expedited removal without judicial oversight, and the power to deny foreign applicants for admission, including permanent residents, all access to legal representation.  When the interests at risk in a refusal of admission are significant, and an unjust refusal adversely affects the rights of American citizens and businesses, the unregulated "third-degree" style of border enforcement must give way to the rule of law and enhanced due process protections.

Create Additional Immigration Checks and Balances. The current system of immigration justice too often fails to provide prompt and legally correct decisions.  Probably the worst offender is the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), a faux-"tribunal" that has failed to fulfill its professed mission.  It is staffed by too many non-lawyers, issuing too many legally dubious and inordinately delayed decisions, without rules of court, from within the same agency (USCIS) that issued the initial decision, while denying many parties with legal interests in the outcome an opportunity to be heard or affording a means to preserve the status quo (e.g., uninterrupted employment authorization) when an appeal remains pending.  It should be moved out of the Department of Homeland Security and perhaps into the Justice Department, say to the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) where other administrative claims under the legal immigration system are heard. 

Better yet, Congress should create a new Federal Immigration Court (FIC), styled after the Federal Bankruptcy Court and the Tax Court, to be staffed by judges appointed under Article III of the Constitution, possessing jurisdiction over all immigration law issues, in place of not just the AAO, but also the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Department of Labor's Administrative Law Judges and Administrative Review Board, and the Federal District Courts. The FIC could also assume jurisdiction over appeals of consular visa refusals under the pilot program suggested above.

Other immigration checks and balances would entail enhancing the power of (a) the Office of the USCIS Ombudsman, by giving it the authority to overrule legally erroneous actions of USCIS, and (b) the Department of Homeland Security's Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, by expanding beyond its authority to advise the DHS Secretary on policy changes and authorizing it to investigate and penalize violations of civil rights, civil liberties and due process.

Reassign Agency Roles.  The Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS) of USCIS has no place in an agency charged with conferring immigration benefits on deserving petitioners and applicants.  FDNS should be moved into U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE) because the missions of FDNS and ICE are hand-in-glove aligned and ICE has established a variety of due process protections which, alas, FDNS now routinely ignores (like prior notice to counsel of client site visits). Similarly, the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration should be ordered by Congress to cease its wasteful and duplicitous labor market testing process known as "labor certification."  Instead, the Bureau of Labor Statistics should be instructed to publish lists of shortage occupations based on data collected nationally, and prospective employers should be allowed to petition for foreign workers based on the shortage lists.  Employers should also be allowed to petition for inclusion of new or omitted occupations on the lists based on a regulations proposed for public comment and finalized under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Expand or Eliminate Work- and Investor-Visa Quotas. Numerous studies have shown that employment-based immigration promotes economic growth and opportunity in the importing nation and -- through remittances sent back home -- in the exporting nation as well.  Why then should there be a quota on economic growth?  The only conceivable situation is where growth creates tangible problems that are proven to override the economic benefits of employment-based immigration.  Our current immigration system, however, pulls quota numbers out of thin air, without regard to any published financial or demographic metrics.  Take for example the H-1B visa quota which is now set at 85,000 but has ranged from 65,000 to close to 200,000 since its imposition in 1990, and it is Swiss-cheesed with exemptions for Chileans, Singaporeans, Australians and other privileged classes.  The history of the program has shown that the quota is inadequate when market demand for foreign workers is high and unnecessary when demand is low.  So, why have a quota on "smart people" (as business leader and philanthropist Bill Gates has asked)?

Establish uniform privileges across all work visa categories.  There is no reason why spouses of E, J-1 and L-1 visa holders are allowed to work and spouses of other visa holders are prohibited.  If promoting dual-career households is a public good, then make the opportunity available uniformly for all work visa categories.  There is likewise no reason why H-1B, H-4, L-1 and L-2 visa holders can travel abroad and reenter on their visas without being deemed to have abandoned their green-card applications, while applicants in other visa categories applying for green cards must re-apply if they leave and return.  Nor is it logical that H-1B visa holders have "portability" of benefits when they change employers and can extend their cumulative stay beyond the usual multi-year maximum if they pursue a green card but other work visa holders are denied these privileges.  And the mother of all illogical immigration notions -- the presumed intent of a nonimmigrant visa applicant to immigrate unless the contrary is proven -- should be just as inapplicable to all visa categories as it is to a few (such as the H-1B, L-1 and O-1 visas).

Promote Immigration Transparency and Accountability. The immigration stakeholder community has no way to identify adjudicators who consistently misinterpret the law, misunderstand basic business concepts, defy headquarters directives or ignore judicial precedents.  Unlike Immigration Judges whose patterns of decisions are trackable, immigration decision-makers do not affix their name or a tracking number to their decisions. These bad apples taint the rest of the produce in the barrel and bring disrepute on the system.  Personnel laws administered behind the scenes are not enough to deter incompetence or insubordination.  Congress should mandate a system of transparency and accountability that allows the public to monitor and protest malfeasant and miscreant behaviors among immigration adjudicators. 

Promote entrepreneurship and investment.  Congress should promote economic pragmatism and eliminate the current bars that prevent working owners, entrepreneurs and investors from immigrating to the United States. It should allow a greater measure of "free-agency" for talented foreign nationals rather than permit pre-arranged employer sponsorship as the sole or primary vehicle for business-related immigration benefits.  It should also streamline the EB-5 program so that adjudicators are not allowed to demand rail-car loads of irrelevant paper based on ever-changing and novel interpretations of legal requirements.  It should allow for the creation of a Founders or Start-Up Visa.  It should confer immigration benefits on investors in residential or commercial real estate.  It should establish a race-to-the-top competition which would confer to states proposing innovative commercial, business, artistic or scientific projects the right to grant a share of work visas and green cards to the most promising foreign applicants. And it should foster worthy pilot immigration projects targeted to solving big problems.

* * *

These suggestions for a more welcoming immigration system receive little attention from the press and politicians who focus on border and interior enforcement, a path to citizenship for the undocumented and future flows of immigrant workers. 

While the problems the politicos and pundits identify require a solution, America will still fail to create a 21st Century immigration system unless it takes aggressive steps to welcome the world's most desirable immigrants.

Andrew Jackson had his "Kitchen Cabinet," Franklin Roosevelt his "Brain Trust."   Seth Godin has his "Tribes," web-based "silos of interest." 

I've been a member of many tribes (as I write this I'm recalling my tattered T-shirt from my own and my adult daughter's Indian Princess days, many moons ago [click here to see the shirt]).

In the Googlean sense, immigration lawyers likewise have their "circles" (if a noun can become a verb, I guess it can be an adjective as well). We lawyers of the immigration arts congregate privately in many places including local bar associations, on IMMLOG (a practitioners' list serve run by Kevin Dixler) and IMMPROF (a list serve for professors of immigration law, hosted by Hiroshi Motomura), through the American Immigration lawyers Association (the national immigration bar), which has a New Members Division, a group for Senior Lawyers (known as the Silver Foxes, led by Ken Stern), and numerous AILA Interest Groups. There's even "Cool Immigration Lawyers," a private meeting place on Facebook "for cool immigration attorneys who think it is awesome to help people and to insist on justice for everyone."

My prime immigration tribe is the Alliance of Business Immigration Lawyers (ABIL).  It's expanded wonderfully over the last 10+ years since I founded it; but it still performs its original mission very well.  ABIL was established on the principle of "competitive empathy," the notion that although we operate in separate law firms, "none of us is as smart as all of us." I liken it to a 12-Step Group for battle-weary immigration practitioners who acknowledge we're "powerless" over the ever-crashing waves of change washing over our chosen field of law.

The most recent tsunami -- the Obama Administration's program of immigration enforcement abatement, known as DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) -- has flooded the immigration tribal counsel with challenges and questions since August 15 when U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released DACA forms, instructions and FAQs.  These include Form I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, with nine pages of instructions, Form I-765WS, a work-need worksheet, and a DACA web page with FAQ.

The challenges include concerns among DREAMers and immigration community-based organizations that lawyers may price-gouge to handle DACA cases, reflected recently by perhaps the most-famous DREAMer, Jose Antonio Vargas, who tweeted from @Joseiswriting on August 16: "I try to be positive, but there is a special place in hell for lawyers who take advantage of #DACA by overcharging, etc." (I tweeted back to Jose, who is my client: "[Jose]: Please don't jump to conclusions. You need to know the facts of the case to know if the fee is fair or foul."  He responded by kindly urging his Twitter followers to follow: "@angelopaparelli: a great lawyer who's been advising me and, in turn, keeping me sane. [T]hank you for the help and support!")

The flip side of this concern is the difficulty individual immigration lawyers have had setting an ethically proper and reasonable fee in a practice area where fixed, project-based fees are the norm. Outside observers without an institutional history of how immigration-benefits programs have been (mis)managed might naïvely assume that the task must not be too complex, just three forms, the I-821D, the work permit application and the corresponding worksheet to show economic need, supported by written proof of a few "simple" facts (entry to the U.S. before age 15, five-years of continuous presence as of June 15, 2012, presence in the country on that day, no older than 30, and no serious criminal history.)  They would be mistaken.

USCIS knows that Congress, the Media, the Presidential campaigns, and the pro- and anti-immigration interest groups will be watching closely to see whether the agency can handle the estimated 1.7 million youth potentially eligible for DACA, whether fraud will infect the program or be minimized, whether the agency will act with humanitarian compassion under law or ICE-like negativity in exercising prosecutorial discretion, and whether employers who help a DREAMer acknowledge physical presence and past or current employment in the U.S. will face investigation and enforcement actions by USCIS's Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS) or by ICE.

The immigration bar, electronically-transmitting the 21st Century equivalent of tribal smoke signals over these last frenetic days, knows that immigration confusion and complexity will flourish like a Chia pet on growth hormones as USCIS's implementation of DACA unfolds. Witness the many unanswered issues and concerns that DACA has generated as reflected in the notes of the USCIS's DACA Public Engagement on August 14, provided courtesy of Sally Kinoshita, an immigration lawyer and Deputy Director at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC), the ILRC's DACA Criminal Bars Chart, and postings of the American Immigration Council by its Legal Action Center (DACA Practice Advisory) and Immigration Policy Center (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals: A Q&A Guide [Updated]). 

Even the most mundane issues involve significant costs that clients or lawyers must bear unless answered soon.  Attorney Marty Rosenbluth, Executive Director at the North Carolina Immigrant Rights Project asks of Facebook's "Cool Immigration Lawyers":

I know that some questions USCIS/DHS/ICE will answer with "it depends on the totality of the circumstances", but I think we can get a clear answer to a few questions before we start filing hundreds of these things. If we go through all the trouble of tabbing the appendices, are they going to be stripped off so the documents can be scanned before the person who will be deciding actually reads it? We thought it would make the [applications] easy to follow, but if they are just going to be stripped off beforehand we won't bother.

Also, we were thinking of using color coding, but if the scans are [black & white] there is no point there either.

* * *

Thank goodness for immigration-lawyer tribes. Besides "help[ing] people and . . . insist[ing] on justice for everyone," while trying to keep our staffs paid and doors open, we also dedicate our time and talent to advise and represent DREAMers as they wade through DACA's treacherous waters. Were it not for these collegial tribes, many of us (probably myself included) would have thrown in the towel years ago, mirroring the fate of Murray Burns, the protagonist in Herb Gardner's A Thousand Clowns.

Played by Jason Robards in the classic 1965 film, Murray explains why he finally had had enough and quit his job as TV personality, Chuckles the Clown. While ordering a martini one evening after work, he was asked by the bartender if he wanted an onion or olive with it. Murray responds: "Gosh and golly, you betcha!"  We are not clownish robots with pens and swords. Our immigration tribes help remind us of who we are and why we do what we do.

[Blogger's postscript] 

Although I'd seen the film and loved it, I couldn't find the Chuckles the Clown quote on the internet except in stray chats and a web-published book, The Robot's Pen and Sword, by an unnamed author whose site is the source of the photo above.

[Blogger's post- postscript]

My last blog post, Immigration D-Day for DACA: Get Protection!, generated a thoughtful, heartfelt critique by a good friend, and fellow immigration tribesman, Gary Endelman.  Gary took me to task for my "use of the Holocaust as a standard of comparison" to the plight of the DREAMers. On reflection, I was wrong, and apologized to Gary, and now do likewise to anyone else offended by my inapt metaphor. Gary, who is not only an immigration scholar of well-deserved repute, but also a Doctor of History, gave me permission to follow up on my blog to communicate a larger point, which he eloquently laid out, and with which I fully agree: 

I would simply urge that we all respect the historical integrity of each experience and not use any incident or event as a catch phrase to describe something that, while horrible, may be fundamentally different.  The historian in me.

I think you might want to follow up this blog with another one that perhaps can capture the larger point, which is that whenever any nation denies those who live there the human right to become all that they are capable of being, whenever we violate  the essential human decency of our friends and neighbors, whenever we ignore what unites us to focus on what divides us, that is the seed corn for intolerance and hate.

I also apologize to any Native Americans and others who may have been offended by my fondly recalled participation in the Indian Princesses, a Girls-Dads group sponsored by the YMCA's Indian Guides. No offense is intended; only admiration for the Indian nations' wholesome, natural and eco-friendly way of living on the earth. 

"[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." 

[Blogger's note:  Whether by dint of nature or nurture, lawyers love to argue; immigration lawyers perhaps more so. Unlike our colleagues (outside of immigration practice) for whom sources of law are better defined, immigration attorneys can access a wider array of law and non-law sources with which to fashion our pro and con arguments.  

As a change of pace from this blog's usual fare of criticizing immigration agencies and Congress, today we'll offer a PG-rated point/counterpoint with guest blogger, Karin Wolman, and me (Disclosure: Neither of us is depicted in the photo).  

We debate the oft-posed question whether a foreign citizen while living in the United States and holding one of any number of categories of U.S. nonimmigrant status who are not expressly authorized to work can nonetheless be employed by and serve a foreign employer.  This might, for example, include:

• a spouse on a dependent visa whose other half is lawfully employed on a work visa;
• a B-2 or WT (visa waiver) visitor for pleasure vacationing in the U.S. who must attend to emails sent by a customer of the visitor's foreign employer;
• a B-1 or WB (visa waiver) visitor for business who must assign or supervise work to be performed abroad;
• an F-1 student who is sent by her employer abroad to study for an MBA; or
• an H-1B work visa holder who (although authorized to work for a specific U.S. employer) is not expressly permitted to moonlight for an employer abroad.

The controversy arises because Congress has never bothered to define "employment" under the immigration laws, and the definitions of the term in immigration regulations, case law and non-binding policy guidance are incomplete or imprecise.  

So you be the judge.]

Can I Work from Home for a Foreign Employer? 

[Karin Wolman's answer] 

 May a foreign national without work-authorized visa status to work remotely from a home located in the United States for an employer located abroad?  This question lies squarely at the intersection of immigration & tax law, and the short answer is no, except for nonimmigrants in the F-1 (Academic Students), J-1 (Exchange Visitors) & Q (Cultural Exchange Participants) visa categories. 

For the individual, the foremost reason why not is spelled out in Chapter 3 of IRS Publication 519, US Tax Guide for Aliens.  Any income from services performed for a foreign employer by someone present in the United States is deemed “US source income” unless that income meets ALL THREE of the following conditions:

1. total annual earnings from such services is less than $3,000; 
2.  the nonresident alien is physically present in the United States for not more than 90 days in the year; 
3. the services are performed under contract with a nonresident alien individual, foreign partnership or foreign corporation.

This tax rule interacts with the visa rules in the following way: Many nonimmigrants, such as B-1/B-2 visitors, and certain dependent spouses of temporary workers, such as those in H-4 or O-3 status, are ineligible to apply for work authorization in the United States. For the H-4 or O-3 visa holder, here accompanying a spouse who is lawfully employed in the US, such a person is likely to be physically present in the United States for all or most of the year, rather  than under 3 months. Their visa status does not permit them to earn any “US source income.”  If they do earn any significant income from a foreign source while spending most of the year here, it will be considered “US source income” because they are located here, and it will be taxable here.  From the immigration perspective, earning any US source income would be considered freelance “self-employment” (since there is no U.S. employer) and it would be considered a visa status violation. That income, revealed later on the couple’s US income tax return, could render the non-work-authorized spouse ineligible to adjust status to lawful permanent residence under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 245(c).

There is one important carve-out for foreign students and exchange visitors present in the United States under F, J or Q nonimmigrant visa status. These nonimmigrants, including their spouses and children in a dependent visa classification, are permitted to exclude from their U.S. gross income any pay received from a foreign employer. This group includes a wide assortment of students, scholars, trainees, interns, teachers, professors, researchers and research assistants, or leaders in a field of specialized knowledge or skill. F, J & Q nonimmigrants and their dependents may work from home for a foreign employer, and are not considered to have earned any US source income by doing so.

The ramifications for the foreign employer are much more significant, and involve overlapping global mobility issues of tax, immigration, corporate, and employment laws. The foreign company must determine how to obtain the appropriate visa status for its worker so it can have an employee legally residing and working in the United States. This in turn will require the foreign company to have some type of corporate entity or branch office doing business in the United States. In addition to establishing a legal presence in the United States, the foreign company must identify what other taxes its U.S. entity may be subject to, in addition to payroll tax, how that will affect treatment of corporate income of the foreign entity, and whether they can avoid double-taxation by means of a tax treaty. The foreign employer must consider local employment and contract laws in the jurisdiction where the employee is located in the United States, as the employee’s physical location determines which laws apply.

 *CAVEAT* I am an immigration attorney, not a tax attorney or accountant. Please seek advice on the tax implications of your specific situation from a qualified tax professional. 

Can I Work from Home for a Foreign Employer?

[Angelo Paparelli's reply]

Can a nonimmigrant who lacks authorization by U.S. immigration authorities be employed in the U.S. to work from his or her home in the U.S. for a foreign employer abroad?  My lawyerly answer is: It depends.  The question is not one of tax law.  The tax laws and immigration statutes have each been enacted for distinct purposes, and one legal regimen does not necessarily inform the other. Rather than taxation, the laws of employment and of immigration apply, as well as a subject of law study known as "conflicts of law." 

Phrase the question thusly and the answer may well be different from the one Karin offers:  

Does U.S. immigration law prohibit a foreign citizen from fulfilling an employment agreement with a company incorporated and doing business abroad?

Before answering, assume the agreement specifies that the required activities will involve creating and saving work product, through the use of a web browser in "the cloud," with the cloud's servers located on foreign soil.

Assume further that the agreement allows the foreign citizen to work from anywhere in the world, is made before the individual enters the U.S., and provides that salary payment shall be in a foreign (non-U.S.) currency with direct deposit into a foreign bank account and provides that the law of the foreign state and the courts of that state where the employer has its headquarters shall govern any disputes that may arise between employer and employee.

On these assumed facts, does the foreign employer or employee violate American immigration law if the employee fulfills his or her part of the bargain from a residence in the United States? My answer is:  Probably not, because the mere fortuity that the work is performed from within the U.S. rather than in any other country is too slim a fact to give the U.S. under conflicts of law principles a legitimate interest in applying American law. After all, no American workers were harmed by the work performed under this contract.  

As I read the INA, Congress has never expressly said that U.S. immigration law should be given extraterritorial effect.  See EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 111 S.Ct. 1227, 1230 (1991), in which the Supreme Court changed the longstanding presumption against the extraterritorial application of American law (unless a contrary intent appears) into a presumption against extraterritoriality (unless there is the affirmative intention of the Congress clearly expressed). To be sure, the U.S. immigration police would probably try to assert that a nonimmigrant who works from his U.S. home for a foreign employer on the facts I've posited has violated the immigration laws. But that doesn't mean the immigration cops would be right.  I believe, nonetheless, that the federal judiciary would follow EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co. and say that U.S. immigration law cannot be applied extraterritorially to prohibit that which is lawful on foreign soil.

[Karin Wolman's retort] 

I fall unequivocally on the "unauthorized employment" side: The salary paid for the employment is active, earned income characterized by a combination of three factors -- provision of services for hire by the foreign national + physical presence in the US that is not brief nor intermittent + U.S. source income in exchange for provision of those services.

[Angelo Paparelli's rejoinder]

The real question then is not whether a foreign employer may employ a foreign citizen working in her American home without a work visa but WWTCD (What would the courts do)? 

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.