An essay in today's New York Times, "Unexceptionalism:  A Primer," by the novelist, E. L. Doctorow, describes in four "phases" how America can take steps to become unexceptional, that is, "indistinguishable from the impoverished, traditionally undemocratic, brutal or catatonic countries in the world." 

Phase one begins with Bush v. Gore, a ruling that "ignore[s] the first sacrament of a democracy and suspend[s] the counting of ballots in a presidential election." 

Phase four ends with a naked power grab: 

If you're a justice of the Supreme Court, decide that the police of any and all cities and towns and villages have the absolute authority to strip-search any person whom they, for whatever reason, put under arrest.

In phase three, Doctorow turns to immigration -- the form of authentic American exceptionalism to which this blog is dedicated -- and says (ironically, to my law-trained mind):  

When possible, treat immigrants as criminals.  

He apparently assumes that exceptionalism declines when the foreign-born among us are locked away for trivial or modest immigration violations, even when they pose no threat of escape or of harm to society. He might also be suggesting that by separating them from their U.S. citizen relatives after their right to be in the U.S. has been tested and denied in removal (deportation) proceedings too often threatens American families with poverty and a life of needless suffering. 

In this he is right.  Immigrant detention -- promoted by a smart "ALEC" in retreat -- has become a huge business, an industry so successful that it lacks adequate facilities to house immigrant detainees, one where even children as young as eight are placed in "emergency" quarters on military bases.

If Doctorow instead meant to refer to the treatment of suspected wrongdoers under either the immigration or the criminal laws, this otherwise brilliant author is flat wrong. 

Criminal suspects are guaranteed rights that people charged with violating the immigration laws can only envy. Defendants in criminal trials in most cases enjoy the right to a trial by jury. Their guilt must be established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Under the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution, they may only be convicted for conduct that Congress made illegal before the forbidden act occurred. Indigent criminal defendants are entitled to appointed defense counsel at government expense.

Whether rich or poor or in between, criminal suspects have Constitutionally endowed Miranda rights (the warning that anything they say to police can and will be used against them in a court of law). They have a right to examine any exculpatory evidence in the government's possession, and the right to confront the witnesses against them and insist that the court exclude purely hearsay evidence. The judges who preside in criminal cases are subject to the canons of judicial ethics. Criminal proceedings are transcribed by court reporters so as to establish an accurate record and make sure that the right to appeal a conviction is preserved.

Because of the legal charade that removal proceedings are "civil" and not "criminal" in nature, that deportation is not "punishment," foreign citizens whose immigration status is challenged at a removal hearing before an immigration judge enjoy no such rights.

Although not treated as punishment under the immigration laws, removal (or its virtual twin, inadmissibility) hurts no less.  A former Attorney General might just as well have been talking about removal rather than inadmissibility in Matter of S- and B-C, 9 I & N Dec. 436, at 447 (BIA 1960; A.G. 1961), when he said:

Shutting off the opportunity to come to the United States [or, as I would also put it, forcing someone to leave] actually is a crushing deprivation to many prospective [and current] immigrants. Very often it destroys the hopes and aspirations of a lifetime, and it frequently operates not only against the individual immediately but also bears heavily upon his family in and out of the United States.

If America treated immigrants in removal proceedings as if they were criminal defendants, the foreign-born whose status is at risk would enjoy significantly greater rights, and the harsh rule of immigration law would be tempered with justice.  At present, however, respondents in immigration proceedings are at greater likelihood of being found at fault than criminal defendants. Here's why:

• No presumption of innocence but proof "beyond doubt." An applicant for admission to the U.S. as well as a so-called "arriving alien" is not presumed innocent.  Rather s/he must prove "clearly and beyond doubt [that s/he is] entitled to be admitted and is not inadmissible. . . ." The "clearly and beyond doubt" burden of proof imposed on the foreign citizen is even more difficult to establish than the duty imposed on prosecutors to prove a criminal defendant's guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt."  Even for foreigners who have already been granted admission, the noncitizen (whose alienage the government has proven) must establish by clear and convincing evidence that he or she is in the U.S. based on a lawful admission.  Only then is the government required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent is deportable.
• No Jury. Respondents in removal proceedings have no right to a jury trial.
• No government-paid legal counsel for the indigent or incapacitated. Unlike criminal defendants, respondents facing removal (even minors and the mentally impaired) who cannot afford a lawyer have no right to legal counsel at government expense.
• Late advisal of right to avoid self-incrimination. Immigrant respondents are only given Miranda warnings (by regulation rather than Constitutional guarantee) after a Notice to Appear before an immigration judge is served upon them.
• "Loosey-Goosey" rules of evidence. Hearsay evidence may be used against respondents in removal proceedings at the discretion of the immigration judge.
• Limited access to exculpatory evidence. Immigrant respondents are not automatically given access to evidence that may establish their innocence of the charges against them or their eligibility for relief from removal.  They must file Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests or request the immigration judge's permission to subpoena documents or witnesses. Even if such evidence is not made available to the respondent, the immigration judge can find the person removable and ineligible for various types of discretionary relief.
• In-person proceedings with court reporters transcribing every word not allowed. Immigration court cases are conducted without court reporters.  Instead, they are audio- or video-recorded. Too often this denies them justice.  Audio recorders are often turned on and off at the sometimes hasty flick of an immigration judge's finger -- at times thereby leaving out crucial factual information or legal argument. At other times, the recordings are garbled, incomprehensible or defective. This is usually discovered months or years later on appeal, thus requiring a remand to the immigration judge for rehearing.  Live video recording -- which occurs with detained immigrants -- often interferes with the effective representation of counsel or prevents a clear understanding of the proceedings by the person most affected, the respondent.
• Retroactive culpability. Immigrants can be removed from the U.S. for conduct that would not have warranted deportation when the act was committed.  This is because Congress can and often does change the grounds for immigration removal retroactively.  There is no Ex Post Facto rule prohibiting deportation for past non-culpable conduct.
• Immigration judges not subject to canons of judicial ethics. Although proposals to impose a judicial ethics code on immigration judges have been suggested, they are not yet final. In criminal courts, however, judges are subject to ethical canons, patterned after the American Bar Association's Model Code of Judicial Conduct.

The civil-not-criminal distinction in removal proceedings may soon be meaningless.  If, as the prognosticators suggest, the Supreme Court upholds Section 3 of Arizona's S.B. 1070, which creates the crimes of being unlawfully present in the U.S. and of failing to register with the federal government, we may learn in a future case whether the lack of criminal defendants' rights in immigration proceedings can withstand Constitutional challenge. 

I'd rather see our leaders deservedly stake claim to the notion of American Exceptionalism and distinguish our nation "from the impoverished, traditionally undemocratic, brutal or catatonic countries in the world," by, whenever possible, granting immigrants the same legal rights as we give to criminal defendants. 

At President Obama’s signing ceremony for the JOBS Act last week, White House guests slapped high fives with bipartisan glee. They came to the Rose Garden to help “Jumpstart Our Business Startups,” as the new law’s title optimistically promises to do. With pen in hand, the President joined in the merriment, observing that it’s not about blather but action:

One of the great things about America is that we are a nation of doers -- not just talkers, but doers. We think big. We take risks. And we believe that anyone with a solid plan and a willingness to work hard can turn even the most improbable idea into a successful business. So ours is a legacy of Edisons and Graham Bells, Fords and Boeings, of Googles and of Twitters. This is a country that’s always been on the cutting edge. And the reason is that America has always had the most daring entrepreneurs in the world. . . . [M]aybe one of them or one of the folks in the audience here today will be the next Bill Gates or Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg. And one of them may be the next entrepreneur to turn a big idea into an entire new industry. That’s the promise of America. That’s what this country is all about.

With an eye to November and an 11% approval rating, members of the House and Senate are trying at last to rebrand themselves as a “done-something” Congress. Would it were so with the DREAM Act or with urgently needed reforms to our antiquated system of legal immigration whose last major enactment occurred in 1990. Regrettably, when it comes to immigration, the American people get claptrap not high fives.

Three years ago the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) issued a bipartisan report and recommendations on U.S. immigration policy, the work of a task force study led by Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Thomas F. "Mack" McLarty III, former White House Chief of Staff to President Clinton. Last month, another bipartisan CFR task force, this one headed by Condoleezza Rice, former Secretary of State under the second President Bush, and Joel Klein, ex-Chancellor of the New York City education department and Counsel in the Clinton White House, issued its study and suggestions to improve U.S. national security by reforming education.

Taken together, these reports sound a clarion call for immediate legislative action on legal immigration.

As the Bush-McLarty report proposed:

The Task Force recommends that the United States tackle head-on the growing competition for skilled immigrants from other countries and make the goal of attracting such immigrants a central component of its immigration policy. For decades, the primary goal has been to ration admission; in the future, recruiting the immigrants it wants must be the highest priority.

The Rice-Klein study on education reform and national security concurs:

Too many schools have failed to provide young citizens with the tools they need to contribute to U.S. competitiveness. This, coupled with an immigration system in need of reform, poses real threats to the prospects of citizens, constrains the growth of the U.S. talent pool, and limits innovation and economic competitiveness.

The epicenter of the logjam on immigration bipartisanship – at least in the Senate – is Iowa Republican, Chuck Grassley.  Although he voted “Yea” on the bill that became the JOBS Act, Sen. Grassley is an immigration obstructionist, seemingly blind to the links between employment-based visas, U.S. prosperity and job creation for our citizens.

Despite passage in the house by a 389 to 15 vote margin, he has held up a vote on the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act — a bill that would eliminate the per-country caps on employment-based immigrants and thus allow foreign workers born in China, India and other quota-backlogged countries to obtain a green card more quickly. Sen. Grassley has also blockaded a proposal pushed by fellow Republican Senator, Scott Brown, which would give Irish citizens parity with Australians in receiving E-3 visas.

The Iowa senator worries that “flooding the employment market with foreign workers when high-skilled Americans are seeking jobs at unprecedented levels, just doesn't square with improving the home-team advantage, let alone fostering a level playing field.”

Even more worrisome to Sen. Grassley are immigration fraudsters who steal jobs from Americans. He sees them everywhere, much like the young boy, Cole Sear, in the 1999 film, The Sixth Sense, who sees dead people all around:

Cole Sear (played by Haley Joel Osment): I see dead people.

Malcolm Crowe (played by Bruce Willis): In your dreams? [Cole shakes his head no]

Malcolm Crowe: While you're awake? [Cole nods]

Malcolm Crowe: Dead people like, in graves? In coffins?

Cole Sear: Walking around like regular people. They don't see each other. They only see what they want to see. They don't know they're dead.

Malcolm Crowe: How often do you see them?

Cole Sear: All the time. They're everywhere.

Sen. Grassley wants to place even more rigid controls on the H-1B visa (for Specialty Occupation Workers) and the L-1 visa (for Intracompany Transferees). The senator would inflate the wages that U.S. employers must pay skilled foreign workers (even though the law of supply and demand is producing that result already without an act of Congress), require feckless labor market testing of workers in occupations with low unemployment rates, and give even more authority to the Labor Department to send disruptive auditors to the worksites to investigate the supposedly ever-present fraud that he perceives.

And as Congress dawdles on legal immigration, Sen. Grassley has been a one-man lightning rod, jolting the immigration agencies under the W and Obama administrations and intimidating them so that they jump to his bidding.

Under pressure from Sen. Grassley, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Department of State have denied and revoked visas and work petitions, while sending ever larger legions of immigration gumshoes from the USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS) on unannounced and repeated visits to worksites around the country.

Not content to engage in officious intermeddling with an Executive Branch immigration agency, Sen. Grassley has also been busy tasering the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General (IG) into issuing breathless reports based on unscientific measurements that unpersuasively document "evidence" of perceived fraud (links available here, here and here).  It's not as if the IG has nothing to do; rather, he should be spending more time investigating DHS's internal operations.

No knowledgeable observer would deny the existence of immigration fraud. I see its victims often among the immigrants who seek my counsel after having been bamboozled not just by a few unscrupulous lawyers but also by the larger ranks of incompetent and dangerous consultants and notarios – a population still coddled by the Labor Department even though USCIS, quite laudably, has mounted a campaign against them. And of course, some percentage of employers will bend or break or simply misunderstand the befuddling “rules” that the immigration agencies have written (or failed to write) in response to the existing crazy-quilt of laws passed by Congress since at least the 1950s. Despite the massive aggrandizement of law-enforcement resources to guard the immigration system since September 11, little evidence exists to show that visa fraud is widespread or that it occurs at any greater rate than in other federal programs.

We can electrify and fortify our borders, and send in the immigration drones and detectives, but we still need law-abiding sojourners and immigrants to reinvigorate our economy and uplift our people.

As much as NationOfImmigrators assails the wrongdoing of the immigration agencies, this blogger knows nonetheless that they are peopled mostly with patriots trying to do the right thing (as a USCIS Service Center Director correctly reminded me last week and as the USCIS’s Fiscal Year 2011 Highlights Report confirms).

They make mistakes, to be sure, and engage in insincere Washingtonian wordsmithing. Take for example the oft-repeated conceit that FDNS site visits are merely cleverly surprising methods to insure integrity in immigration petitions and are not law-enforcement actions subject to Fourth Amendment protections.

The veil’s been lifted on that falsehood, however, with the issuance of a March 30, 2012 federal court order in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) suit by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) against USCIS and DHS. AILA’s lawsuit seeks release of three USCIS documents, viz., its H-1B Benefits Fraud Compliance Assessment Report (BFCA), H-1B Petition Fraud Referral Sheet and H-1B Compliance Review Worksheet. Although the suit continues, the court generally affirmed for now USCIS’s assertion that its actions in refusing disclosure are justifiable under the FOIA exemption found at 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E). This section protects records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes from disclosure “to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information . . . would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.” The agency relies on exemption 7E because the requested records, as USCIS’s own pleadings assert, have been “withheld to preserve the integrity and effectiveness of certain techniques and operations of current law enforcement significance.”

On what are these “techniques and operations of current law enforcement significance” based? The court’s order offer’s a tantalizing snippet:

The final page of the BFCA Report identifies several primary fraud or technical violation(s) indicators: (1) firms with 25 of fewer employees have higher rates of fraud or technical violation(s) than larger-sized companies; (2) firms with an annual gross income of less than $10 million have higher rates of fraud or technical violation(s) than firms with annual gross income greater than $10 million; (3) firms in existence less than 10 years have higher incidences of fraud or technical violation(s) than those in existence for more than 10 years; (4) H-1B petitions filed for accounting, human resources, business analysts, sales and advertising occupations are more likely to contain fraud or technical violation(s) than other occupational categories; and (5) beneficiaries with only bachelor’s degrees had higher fraud or technical violation(s) rates than those with graduate degrees.

Ironically, many of the same putative indicators of fraud or technical immigration violations are attributes that describe the precise traits of “Business Startups” – the very entities which bipartisan supporters in Congress hope to “Jumpstart” by passing the JOBS Act. Newly established businesses typically employ less than 25 workers at the outset, initially gross less than $10 million per year, by definition have been in existence less than 10 years, and, just like larger firms, may choose the H-1B visa category to hire accountants, HR specialists, business analysts and workers in sales and advertising jobs for persons who hold only a bachelor’s degree.

Clearly, USCIS and its FDNS unit are now running scared by Sen. Grassley’s gassy harrumphing, and see fraud where the President and most members of Congress, including the Senior Senator from Iowa, see opportunities for job creation.

The solution is to debunk the notion that American job losses are caused by increased legal immigration; rather, as the National Foundation for American Policy has shown, more employment-based immigration creates more jobs for U.S. workers.  

One true believer in the power of immigration, Steve Case (former AOL founder and now venture capitalist), who was instrumental in gaining the votes for the JOBS Act, says, "[m]omentum begets momentum."  Case now has set his sights on passing job-creating immigration laws before the November election (a controversial subject among some immigration proponents who believe that only a comprehensive solution, including remedies for the undocumented, will rectify America's immigration dysfunctions).

Perhaps with the help of Steve Case and other business leaders, Sen. Grassley may yet be persuaded to spend less time calling the President “stupid” and, instead let his love of job-creating startups push him to transform his antipathy into appreciation for employment-based, legal immigration reform.  

I'm taking a short vacation -- which means that it's time to dive into another Haruki Murakami novel. My first encounter with Murakami, a Japanese author of some 13 books of fiction, involved his immersive fantasy, Kafka on the Shore.  This time its his latest tome, 1Q84, a 925-page behemoth. 

Both books are phantasmagorical journeys through parallel universes -- a fitting description of America's unique form of unreality, its extreme ambivalence toward immigration. Unlike insular and homogeneous Japan, the locus of 1Q84, where immigration is severely restricted, the U.S. imagines itself as welcoming.  We pride ourselves on our diversity and tolerance, our freedoms of thought, religion, press and assembly, and our American Dream mythology.  Yet all around us we see behaviors and attitudes toward immigration -- even in the same individuals -- that are inconsistent and contrary to type. 

I first witnessed this phenomenon at a bar liaison committee meeting with Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) officials in Los Angeles shortly after enactment of the Reagan-era legalization program, a key provision in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). To qualify for legalization, a nonimmigrant entrant's unlawful status must have been "known to the government."  INS officials wanted the pool of eligibles kept small; the immigration lawyers wanted it as large as possible.  Attitude reversals manifested immediately.  What -- before IRCA -- the INS would view as major transgressions of the immigration laws, say, working without permission, these same officers now saw as "no harm, no foul" occurrences unless an unauthorized foreign worker wrote a letter confessing the violation that actually found its way into the individual's INS file.  Conversely, the immigration lawyers latched upon what we'd previously viewed as peccadilloes -- failing to file a change of address report -- as serious misdemeanors. 

Consider also these recent examples:

• Mormon and Catholic Republican presidential candidates, both sons of immigrants (Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum), oppose the hospitable treatment of the undocumented as espoused by leaders of their respective faiths and instead urge a cynical and cruel policy of "self-deportation";
• President Obama, the American son of a black Kenyan (whom, as a student, the old INS, with the help of collusive Harvard officials, hounded out of America for dating a white woman), offers "late to the party," half-hearted support for administrative immigration reforms readily within his grasp;
• Elton Gallegly, Republican Chairman of the House Immigration Subcommittee, assails birthright citizenship, yet tries to sidle up to pro-immigration business interests by expressing concern over the dramatic increase in L-1 work visa denials at USCIS;
• This blogger now presents a sincere mea culpa for intemperateness and imprecision in using the term "cannon fodder" in a preface to a guest post and decrying "the hypocrisy of sending 'expendable' youth into harm's way," thus causing some to reasonably infer that I was criticizing the U.S. military when my targets in fact are the politicians who support a military-only version of the DREAM Act; and
• The inconsistent American people who say they want stiff controls on immigration yet welcome the undocumented gardener and the nanny into their backyards and homes.

Murakami speaks to this phenomenon in 1Q84 when he has the Leader, who heads a violent cult, say:

Most people are not looking for provable truths. . . . [T]ruth is often accompanied by intense pain, and almost no one is looking for painful truths.  What people need is beautiful, comforting stories that make them feel as if their lives have meaning.

Immigrants are not memes; nor are the painful truths about immigration.  Yes, despite the flaws in a recent governmental investigation, immigration fraud does exist -- though probably not even close to the degree that the Inspector General for Homeland Security suggests.  Yes, many immigration and consular officers may operate on hidden agendas of Machiavellian proportions and deny cases unjustly, but others truly care that they make correct decisions based on law and fact.  Yes, immigrants bring energy, entrepreneurship, innovation and wealth to America, but some of our citizens -- particularly at the low end of the skills range -- may be displaced (and thus need extra help).

We as a people and a polity will not eradicate every scintilla of possible harm from immigration nor enjoy solely its benefits.  We must face the immigration truths, however painful, and eliminate as many dysfunctions as bright minds and compassionate hearts can achieve.   What we cannot do is continue to believe in "beautiful, comforting stories that make [us] feel as if [our] lives have meaning" but at bottom are palliative falsehoods.

“Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer And, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer" ~ Alexander Pope, poet, satirist, and translator, “Epistle to Dr Arbuthnot”

I hesitate to criticize the Obama Administration's immigration reform measures, having urged long ago that half a loaf, at least for now, will perforce suffice. 

Hastily announced but untimely in manifestation, the slew of executive half-measures the President's team has lately proposed to improve the functioning of America's broken immigration system seem reminiscent more of vaporware than tangible solutions. 

With less than a year to go on his term, executive orders and departmental or agency press releases are spewing forth as if from a Gatling gun. 

Will these concepts really make a difference?  Or are they merely pheromones to attract progressive, young or Hispanic voters in November?

Consider how much has been said but so little done:

• Prosecutorial Discretion is announced as a measure to spare low-level immigration violators and slam dangerous foreign felons.  So far the record deportations continue almost unabated and the few granted PD are permitted to remain at the pleasure of the President but without deferred action and its benefit of work permission.
• Stateside waiver processing for immediate relatives of U.S. citizens whose hardship can be proven as extreme is revealed in a seemingly humanitarian Notice of Intent and an FAQ.  But no rules or procedures have yet been published, and the risk of death-by-visa-waiting remains as high as ever.
• An interdepartmental push to improve visa processing and promote tourism is inscribed in an Executive Order, with special focus on increased consular officers in Brazil and China.  Still, nothing is said about tourists and business visitors from India whose rupees are as easily converted to dollars and spent in our malls.  Worse yet, no reforms are made by the State Department that would moderate consular absolutism and encourage visa officers -- by amendment of the Foreign Affairs Manual -- to extend a welcome mat more often to foreign visitors with lucre to spend.
• A DHS grab bag of small measures are announced with the goal "to retain highly skilled workers." These ethereal proposals will likely affect only a tiny slice of the job-creating nonimmigrant population. The list of unrealized hopes includes a nebulous assemblage of H-4 dependents married to H-1B workers "who have begun the process of seeking lawful permanent resident status through employment after meeting a minimum period of H-1B status in the U.S."  It also makes note of the leisurely first convening on February 22 of an "Information Summit [at an undisclosed location] in Silicon Valley, CA [where is that? I can't find the city on my California map], that will bring together high-level representatives from the entrepreneurial community, academia, and federal government agencies [first announced on August 2 of last year as step one of the Entrepreneurs in Residence program] to discuss how to maximize current immigration laws' potential to attract foreign entrepreneurial talent."

Desultory blather and high-falutin' promises will not jumpstart job creation. Deeds not words -- published forms, specific eligibility criteria and actual procedures to request new benefits -- are what real administrative reforms require.   

There are many bold steps that could be taken to improve our dysfunctional system even while Congress remains comatose.  Gary Endelman and Cyrus Mehta suggest a Presidential tweak in the interpretation of green-card counting procedures that would eliminate backlogs and do far more than merely granting spousal work permission "to retain highly skilled workers" ("Why We Can’t Wait: How President Obama Can Erase Immigrant Visa Backlogs with the Stroke of A Pen").  Other proposals have been offered in this blog ("Executive Craftsmanship: Job Creation through Existing Immigration Laws," "The Immigration Appeaser-in-Chief Should Try Some New Ammunition" and "Immigration Reform with the Stroke of a Pen").

When it comes to executive action on immigration, the nation needs a profile in courage not a silhouette of timidity.  The first Tuesday in November is fast approaching.  Time waits for no President.

Who really wields power in Washington?  The December 3rd opening sketch of Saturday Night Live, featuring Fred Armisen as a chastened President Obama, offered an answer to the question. 

SNL's Obama shared his insight, gained over the last three years, that the presidency is not truly a powerful post, but merely a "ceremonial position . . . a majestic figurehead." Disabused of any pretensions of strength and influence, he groused that the President is not even among the top five power players, and well behind Grover Norquist, Oprah Winfrey and Tyler Perry.

Real-life House Republicans, however, see power inordinately vested in mostly anonymous bureaucrats. Last week, GOP stalwarts (along with a smattering of Democrats) approved two bills (whose enactment is improbable) that would drastically curtail the rulemaking authority of Executive-Branch agencies. 

Another Republican, perhaps America's highest paid historian, Newt Gingrich, suggested that immigration power -- the authority to pick the lucky individuals who can stay in the U.S. and identify the forlorn others who must leave -- should be vested in community boards, fashioned after the Selective-Service-System citizen boards of World War II vintage.  Given the difficulty of mustering jury panels, it's hard to see how Gingrich's boards might ever be staffed, unless the government were to hire the unemployed (something Newt would no doubt view as anathema).

Others, such as Yale law professor, Peter Schuck, have suggested that Adam Smith's invisible hand manipulate the levers of power, proposing that America "experiment with . . . new ways to improve visa allocation . . . [whereby the] government could auction some visas to the highest bidders."  Similar bunkum, which I have suggested would "amount . . . to a latter-day slave auction," has been proposed by Pia Orrenius, a research officer at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, and Madeline Zavodny, a professor of economics at Agnes Scott College.

A more serious suggestion of how the federal government should exercise power appeared in this weekend's Wall St. Journal in an Op-Ed ("Starting Over with Regulation [-] Why are government rules so complex? A guide to a radically simpler system"). The editorial's author, attorney Philip Howard, chairs the nonpartisan government-reform group, Common Good, which has posted a longer version of his Op-Ed. Howard proposes that the arcane minutia of "bureaucratic detail could be scrapped, and law would become understandable again."  He suggests that the "focus would shift from complicated rules to desired results: clean air, safe food, honest business."

I'm not sure I agree with Howard's proposal, but one thing he says strikes me as having the accuracy of a drone missile: 

The standard objection to such a simplified system is that people would take advantage of the leeway: Companies would ignore their obligations, and bureaucrats would abuse their powers. The only answer to these fears is accountability. There's no need to trust business: Give inspectors presumptive authority to decide whether or not a business is meeting its regulatory obligations. Nor do we need to trust officials. The system would need to include ways to overrule regulators who are unreasonable and to fire them if they consistently show bad judgment. (Bolding added.)

Under today's immigration procedures, however, there is no way for the public to pressure the administrative agencies to fire immigration adjudicators (power-wielders) who "consistently show bad judgment."  Whether from within the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office, the Regional Service Centers, or U.S. consulates or embassies abroad, power is exercised anonymously.  In the case of USCIS, decisions denying benefits are putatively "issued" in the name of the boss of the particular unit.  The particular decision-maker is almost never identified.  While consular officers deny visas in face-to-face fashion (albeit with officer and visa applicant separated by bullet-proof glass), the refusing officers' names are not revealed. 

I recognize, to be sure, the dangers that some immigration adjudicators might face if their identities were known. But just as in the recent debate in the New York Times ("Anonymity and Incivility on the Internet"), some degree of transparency and accountability is necessary if bad behavior is to be prevented and rogue officers disciplined. 

Perhaps, an official governmentally-maintained but secret registry of immigration adjudicator noms de plume can be established. I think that if someone must put one's own name on the decisions he or she makes, then the legal scholarship, application of law to facts, reasoning and justice of each decision will inevitably improve.  At the very least, the public would be able to spot the bad apples (through the good offices of reporting agencies such as Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse -- a data-distribution service of Syracuse University -- which has long provided information on decisions of individual immigration judges).  With metrics on trends of mistaken adjudications, the public could pressure the immigration agencies to re-educate wayward power-wielders, or if unrepentant, demand their removal (from the job, not the country).   

Many dysfunctions within the immigration ecospace are disturbing, but some make my blood boil.  The conniption that brought me to this Howard Beale moment erupted after I belatedly read a Forbes online article, published last April, by Osha Gray Davis ("A Death in Juarez: How U.S. Immigration Policy Is Tearing American Families Apart"). The Forbes piece reported on two people murdered in the Mexican border town of Ciudad Juarez and countless others living there in fear (just across from El Paso, ironically, one of America's safest cities) while waiting for the completion of snails-pace immigrant visa procedures at the U.S. consulate.    

Sadly, Americans by now may be inured to the everyday nature of the drug cartels' killing fields in Mexico, particularly in Juarez.  Last year, 15,000 people were slaughtered in Mexico -- the direct or collateral damage from the drug wars. Juarez, with over 3,000 killings a year, has earned a macabre distinction as Mexico's Murder Capital.  Just this month, two U.S. citizens, a mother and son from Kansas, died there when assault-rifle fire sprayed their SUV.

The situation has become so dire that even the Department of Homeland Security recognizes the importance of returning deportees to the interior of Mexico, far from Juarez, in order to "safeguard" the "the health, dignity, and well-being of undocumented migrants during the repatriation process."

DHS solicitude for the safety of the deported is commendable.  But why does it not also extend to more deserving Mexican citizens who, as the parents and spouses of U.S. citizens, may be eligible to receive green cards?  Why is it official U.S. policy that these immigrant visa applicants are permitted to appear for their mandatory visa interview only at the U.S. consulate in this city of blood lust? 

The problem is not a small one.  The consulate in Juarez is "the largest issuer of [U.S.] immigrant visas in the world," according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.  Neither is the waiting time trivial.  The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman reports that half of the Mexican citizens seeking U.S. immigrant visas who require a waiver of inadmissibility, usually on a showing of extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen spouse or parent, must wait up to 12 months for a decision in their case.  Since a wait of even one day in Juarez may make the applicant a sitting duck for cartel violence, a year-long wait is simply unconscionable.  Worse yet, as explained below, if a waiver application is denied, the family separation may be for ten years or more.

This deadly form of Juarez red rover arises primarily from a failed experiment in 1996 at the instigation of Representative Lamar Smith -- now Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee -- who championed the "unlawful presence" bar to reentry that became part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA).  The bar in most cases involves a decade-long ban on readmission to the U.S. (unless an extreme-hardship waiver is granted) for persons who entered illegally or overstayed the time period granted by the government.  The ten-year bar (like IIRAIRA's three-year and permanent bans on returning) is triggered only after the overstayer or EWI (one who "enters without inspection") has left the United States.  Thus, what might otherwise be a one- or two-day game of consular Russian Roulette in Juarez (as immigrant visa and waiver processing are completed) becomes a one- or ten-year-long exposure to cartel carnage for the 50% of extreme-hardship waiver applicants who are not granted expedited review or are denied a waiver.

As a 2011 law review article ("The American Dream Deferred: Family Separation and Immigrant Visa Adjudications at U.S. Consulates Abroad") argues persuasively, the "choice" facing U.S.-citizen spouses, parents and children of either separation from a loved one for up to ten years (if the waiver is refused) or relocation of the family to a narco-state (my wording) is a Morton's fork on which no one should ever be forcibly skewered:

This form of collective punishment is anti-family and can send ripple effects throughout American communities, from home foreclosures to an increase in single parent households. It is a drastic penalty to impose considering unlawful presence in the U.S. is a civil violation that has gone largely unenforced for many years. It also discourages families from participating in the legal immigration process due to the risk of a potentially devastating separation. After more than ten years since the passage of the unlawful presence bars, it is now appropriate to look closely at their impact and examine whether they constitute sound public policy.

Although IIRAIRA and the administrative time required in the waiver adjudication process might seem to mandate this result, existing executive authority to administer the immigration laws readily allows for a suitable fix (until Congress can be persuaded to repeal the unlawful presence bars).  Here are various actions the Obama Administration could take to solve the problem:

• Grant "parole in place" and expand the "technical-reasons" or no-fault-of-the-applicant forgiveness provision of Immigration and Nationality Act § 245(c) to allow persons otherwise required to attend an immigrant visa interview in Juarez to apply for their green cards through the adjustment of status process. This is the best option for non-willful overstays and Dream Act kids who EWI'd because the unlawful-presence bar would not be triggered and extreme-hardship waiver adjudication would be unnecessary since the applicant would not leave the United States; or
• Adopt a policy to confer extreme-hardship waivers within the U.S. before the consular interview to all non-criminal Mexican applicants based on the dangerous conditions in Mexico and the overriding equity of the family relationship to a U.S. citizen relative.  This is similar to an old Immigration and Naturalization Service Operations Instruction and a precedent decision, Matter of Cavazos, which allowed comparable applicants to obtain green cards through adjustment of status despite inadmissibility; or
• Shut down the U.S. consulate in Juarez until conditions in the city are safe.  (The State Department did close the Juarez post for a few days after two consular employees were killed last year.) State should instead designate alternative consular posts after negotiating with one or more friendly and safer countries to allow Mexican applicants eligible to apply for a hardship waiver to enter for the purpose of attending the consular interview.  This approach would be modeled after the "stateside criteria" and "third-country processing" arrangements with Canada and other nations in the 1980s for Iranians and other foreign nationals who could not travel to their country of citizenship or last residence because of the unavailability of consular facilities there.  It would require an agreement with the host countries to assure the readmission of any denied applicants through the grant of advance parole to reenter.  Denied visa applicants given advance parole and readmitted to the U.S. would then be eligible under current law for adjustment of status, if USCIS granted an extreme hardship waiver, or for prosecutorial discretion, if the waiver were denied.

As these options show, seemingly mandatory legislative procedures that lead to immigration deaths only appear necessary if the Administration is unwilling to look under the hood of the immigration laws to find more compassionate and life-saving alternatives. End the immigration deaths in Juarez NOW. 

The dog days of August are behind us, yet the economic doldrums persist.  Unemployment remains unchanged and unacceptably high at 9.1%. The White House forecasts that it will stay there through the New Year and then likely drop only a tenth of a percentage point for all of 2012. 

Congress returns this week to Washington. Vituperation in lieu of legislative action will soon begin. The media kerfuffle over the timing of the Obama-Jobs speech enraged most citizen observers. Meantime, pundits are asking about the content of the President's speech:  Will he go large to appease dispirited Progressives?  Or, will he propose modest measures that "the Left [won't] understand" in the hope of winning bipartisan support. 

American politicians and special interests seem to have forgotten the "vigorous virtues [of self-reliance, personal responsibility, industriousness and a passion for freedom]," as David Brooks, op-ed columnist for the New York Times, observes. Brooks argues, convincingly, that as a result of this forgetfulness (I would call it blind and callous indifference) a "specter [is] haunting American politics: national decline."

The descent, however, is not inevitable.  It can be reversed.  A largely unseen, silent, law-abiding yet shackled group within our midst embodies all of the vigorous virtues. They are the sojourners from abroad who are yoked to the constricting terms and conditions of a U.S. employer's work visa petition. These hard-working souls are prohibited by law and dubious agency interpretations from using their ideas, talents, capital and energy to start companies and hire American workers.

Fortunately, no act of Congress is required to unleash these innovators, entrepreneurs and job creators and empower them to work their magic. 

The White House already knows it possesses the authority through executive action in immigration matters.  The Administration's recalibration of its immigration enforcement priorities has evoked little public outcry.  Disinformation, however, is spreading but failing to gain much traction.  The "Backdoor Amnesty" dog has no legs and won't hunt.

If unauthorized immigrants with positive equities warrant legitimate administrative relief, as they clearly do, why not reward the more deserving foreign citizens who have patiently waited and played by the rules?  

The President should therefore continue trying to jump start job-creation and allow the next generation of Apples, Googles and as yet unimagined supercompanies to take root in American soil and thrive. The White House's early steps "to Promote Startup Enterprises and Spur Job Creation" have been criticized, however, in this blog and elsewhere, as overly narrow and unhelpful. These missteps are not failures.  They are merely invitations to persist, as the iconic American innovator, Thomas Edison, reminds us ("I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work").

Here then are my suggestions to President Obama for administrative reform of the legal immigration system, as presented to attendees at an outstanding event convened on August 31 in Los Angeles by January Contreras, the USCIS Ombudsman ("Listening Session to Explore Small and Start-Up Business Immigration Issues"):

• Instruct U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to rescind the January 8, 2010 "Neufeld Memorandum" on employer-employee relationships and replace it with a regulation expressly allowing immigration self-sponsorship by owner-entrepreneurs in a broad array of work visa categories for employment on company premises and at customer sites.
• Instruct USCIS and the State Department to issue -- on an expedited basis -- replacement or initial regulations interpreting the following laws in the expansive and job-creating spirit that Congress intended: The Immigration Act of 1990, the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998, and the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000. These regulations should, e.g., broaden eligibility for all categories of the L-1 Intracompany Transferee visa, particularly for start-up operations, function managers and specialized knowledge personnel.
• Instruct USCIS to focus on improving the quality of adjudications by improving the corps of adjudicators who make employment-based immigration decisions:
  • Impose stricter hiring requirements, including the minimum of a relevant bachelor's degree (if it takes that to receive an H-1B visa, the same should apply to grant one), strong writing and analytical skills.
  • Cause the Small Business Administration to provide training to adjudicators on the characteristics, contributions and challenges of small businesses and startups.
  • Review performance metrics and institute sanctions for improper issuance of Requests for Evidence, Notices of Intent to Deny and Revocation notices, while rewarding positive behaviors.
• Instruct USCIS to grant nonimmigrants in lawful immigration status the benefits of “parole in place” and open-market work authorization upon submission of proof that they will open a business, buy a home, hire U.S. workers or devise an innovative technology, good or service.
• Instruct USCIS to allow beneficiaries of approved employment- or family-based immigrant visa petitions whose place in the visa queue is backlogged to apply for adjustment of status (thereby entitling them to open-market work permits until they reach the front of the visa line and can receive green card approval).
• Instruct USCIS to allow Premium Processing of employment-based Administrative Appeals Office appeals and all Motions to Reopen or Reconsider along with the tolling of unlawful presence penalties and the grant of employment authorization during the pendency of non-frivolous filings.
• Instruct the Labor Department to add entrepreneurs and investors to the pre-certified Schedule A labor certification exemption, and allow an entity owned by such individuals to self-sponsor for green card status.
• Instruct USCIS to publicize its 2008 Notice prohibiting internal retaliation against small businesses, define “retaliation” broadly and pursue violations aggressively.
• Instruct USCIS to eliminate the Directorate, Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS), and instruct U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to exercise all investigative and enforcement functions involving alleged immigration benefits fraud and immigration-related national security concerns.
• Instruct ICE to investigate only those small business violations based on articulable and reasonable cause that a violation of the INA has occurred. Stop the guilty until proven innocent approach currently in use. 
• Instruct USCIS to appoint an Associate Director who reports directly to the Director and who is solely responsible for promoting and facilitating the grant of employment based immigration benefits and reporting actions by USCIS personnel that impede, impair or deny the grant of such benefits to deserving parties. This Associate Director would also have authority to intervene under the Homeland Security Act when the State Department takes actions that unreasonably interfere with or deny immigration benefits to startups and small businesses.
• Require strict compliance by all immigration agencies with the notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and the small-business-impact analysis required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and phase out the practice of issuing guidance by policy memorandum.
• Instruct and empower the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy to review and recommend changes to DHS, DOL and DOS rules that adversely affect job creation, entrepreneurship, investment and innovation by small businesses and start-ups.

As we await the President's address to a joint session of Congress, many anticipate that at least one proposal will be to rebuild our nation's existing infrastructure -- the roads, bridges, waterways, and rails.  Let's hope he also includes legitimate administrative fixes to our creaking and crotchety LEGAL immigration infrastructure.  American citizens looking for jobs deserve nothing less. 

Despite persistent immigration deadlock in a Congress whose job approval has plummeted to its nadir, fresh tendrils of hope are sprouting: 

• We hear from reported remarks of Senator Richard Durbin that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will soon announce administrative action to give much-needed relief to individuals who would benefit from the DREAM Act, a bill still in its tenth year of infancy in the "world's greatest deliberative body." 
• Other welcome news came this week from the White House and the DHS agency, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), announcing new immigration avenues for foreign entrepreneurs and releasing a related FAQ.
• These moves arise on the heels of two prosecutorial discretion memos by John Morton, the head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), that balance enforcement priorities with pragmatism by targeting dangerous immigration perps and showing compassion  for low-level immigration violators (allowing them suspended animation and work permission, presumably until Congress gets its houses in order and enacts comprehensive reforms).

These actions are merely yards and yards of 2012 campaign bunting, however, unless the Executive Branch displays chain-of-command rigor in disciplining insubordination in the ranks of lower-level immigration agents. Lofty statements about supporting small business and spurring immigration-juiced job creation are only vaporous platitudes without parallel actions to make sure the troops on the ground follow orders. 

I've blogged before about immigration indifference, describing it as the "Adjudicator's Curse." Time has shown, however, that the manifest problems of widespread flouting of orders stem from more than mere indifference.  Three of my experienced immigration colleagues (each with 20+ years of experience with the agencies), offer painfully descriptive ventings of real-word, systemic immigration meltdowns and propose the theory that adjudicators' off-message behaviors are attributable to "sloth" (a MUST READ: Tyranny of Sloth #1, Tyranny of Sloth #2 and Tyranny of Sloth #3). 

The failure to follow Headquarters' immigration policies is caused by more than indifference and sloth. 

• It could well be job-protection and fear of second-guessing if a bureaucrat makes a bad call in approving an immigration benefit that later explodes and causes an internal investigation or angry Congressional or media attention. (Recall that the posthumous grant of flight student visa status to Mohamed Atta and another 9/11 hijacker led to the elimination of the legacy agency, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).)
• It could be low hiring standards (one in-house counsel of a major American company once reported to this blogger that a senior USCIS official had tried to rationalize her agency's failures to comprehend the contents of documents submitted with his company's immigration petitions by saying, "You must understand, most of our adjudicators have learned English as a second language").
• It could be long institutional memories about a heads-will-roll "Zero Tolerance Policy," followed by the policy's revocation, then followed by a laudable effort to inventory and reconcile agency policies and survey the public. 
• There is probably also a significant measure of union-management tension, reflected, for example, in the attack on the prosecutorial discretion memos and public vote of no-confidence in John Morton by the ICE agents union and the formal opposition to discipline by the USCIS officers union, and
• Let's also not ignore the obvious -- entrenched opposition among career officers to this Administration's more welcoming immigration policies.  We've seen this movie before ("The IRCA Legalization Program," produced by famed Hollywood actor and U.S. President, Ronald Reagan and featuring a "cast of millions") and we know how it ends:
  • Scene 1:  Congress passes the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1987 (IRCA) including a legalization provision requiring, among other elements, proof that a failure to maintain immigration status was "known to the government."
  • Scene 2:  INS issues a series of Legalization communiqués interpreting the "known to the government" requirement in niggardly and niggling fashion, thereby trying to shrink the pool of eligible legalization beneficiaries.
  • Scene 3: Years of expensive federal litigation ensues before final relief to denied "known to the government" beneficiaries is granted in 2008! 

Whatever the cause of bureaucratic intransigence, the President's laudable goal of creating jobs through more enlightened immigration policies and innumerable Conversations with the Director -- however commendable and well intentioned -- will not succeed unless "off-the-reservation" conduct by rogue underlings is sanctioned, not with ribbons and medals but with pink slips. 

As the debt-ceiling crisis causes America to plunge headlong into the lemming-led abyss of a credit default, Congress and the country are reminded of a timeless truth. "Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons."

In these parlous times, our nation is regularly compared to the nearly deadbeat country of Greece, which tried recently but unsuccessfully to sell off some of its sovereign assets. Fortunately for the U.S., however, the sale of our national patrimony is not imminent.  Mount Rushmore, Old Faithful and Lady Liberty are safe, at least for now. Still, America clearly needs more revenue.  With pledge-bound Republicans and Tea Partiers having taken tax increases off the table (except when labeled as immigration user fees), the prospect of near-term levies on the domestic population are virtually nil. 

Not surprisingly, the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security, will hold a hearing July 26, 2011 on “The Economic Imperative for Enacting Immigration Reform” -- something I've argued in a a slew of blog posts over many years.

Maybe, just possibly, perhaps, cross the fingers, our financial desparation will at last cause a tripartisan immigration consensus to emerge.  Even though comprehensive immigration reform (including a path to lawful status for the undocumented) seems a non-starter at present, one revenue-generating reform to the legal immigration system may be the graspable piece of fruit hanging low to the ground.

As a patriotic American, a 35+ year immigration lawyer and former tax attorney, who has learned a few things about exceptionally affluent foreigners, I offer a royalty-free, open-source concept for the Committee to consider. 

Enter our deus ex machina: A worthy and viable revenue-raising immigration reform -- The $$$ Visa. My proposal for the $$$ Visa is based on fundamental truths about super-rich foreign nationals:

1. They enjoy and will pay for special privileges;
2. They don't like unpleasant surprises;
3. They consider themselves VIPs who deserve red-carpet treatment;
4. They usually don't want to immigrate because green card status entails U.S. taxation of their worldwide assets and an exit tax for long term residents who later leave America for good;
5. They create a passel of jobs by hiring minions of lawyers, accountants, financial advisers, chauffuers, interior decorators, designers, stylists, household workers and security personnel who perform for them an array of quotidian tasks (look up family offices here);
6. They seek safety, security and predictability;
7. They are fearful of political risks and want to hedge their bets with safe lodging in America as a backup plan;
8. They have gobs of disposable income; and
9. They are lured to America by its many enticements.

I therefore propose that the $$$ Visa be established as a revenue-raising, jobs-creating vehicle that would permit the ultra-wealthy to help us by helping themselves.  Here are the attributes of the $$$ Visa:

1. For a nonrefundable filing fee of $1 million made payable to the U.S. Treasury, U.S. consular officers abroad and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officers in the U.S. would grant a qualifying foreign citizen, together with his or her spouse and minor children, a $$$ Visa or corresponding $$$ nonimmigrant status, with the visa valid for up to five years on a multiple-entry basis, and each change or extension of status, and each admission period to the U.S. under the visa, granted in two-year increments.
2. Neither U.S. consular officers nor USCIS adjudicators would be authorized to delay $$$ Visa issuance by the need to investigate whether the money so paid came from lawful funds. Instead, the Treasury Department under its current "government-wide multisource financial intelligence and analysis network," known as FinCEN, would establish by regulation the procedure to issue a "certificate of financial eligibility (CFE)."  As an inducement to lift the veil on bank secrecy and encourage federal tax compliance, the federal government would make expedited and streamlined CFE issuance available to citizens of countries that have enacted IRS-approved "Know Your Customer" laws (although nationals of other countries could still qualify for the CFE through more routine and likely slower procedures).
3. A small portion of the revenues generated from the $$$ Visa would be used to establish a red-carpeted VIP lane at U.S. ports of entry.  It's the least we can do to thank them for their contributions to deficit reduction.
4. All of the usual immigration screening procedures would apply to applicants for the $$$ Visa.  No drug cartel chief, terrorist with money, pedophile or other personae non grata could enter on this visa.
5. IRS tax residency rules will stay the same and apply to $$$ Visa holders who remain in the U.S. for periods that satisfy the "physical-presence" test.  Thus, $$$ Visa holders who remain in the U.S. for comparatively short periods would still be classified as nonresidents for income tax purposes while those who stay here longer would be taxed as residents and thereby subject their worldwide income to U.S. taxation.
6. Renewals of $$$ Visas for the same validity period as the original grant would be allowed in the U.S. or abroad at an American consular post for another nonrefundable payment to the U.S. Treasury of $1 million.
7. The $$$ Visa would provide no path to U.S. citizenship, although such visa holders would still be eligible to attain green card status and to naturalize through other existing legal avenues. Thus, no one could claim that we are selling citizenship.       

Critics would likely charge that we are showing preference to the wealthy and privileged.  Not so.  The U.S. already grants immigration benefits to many individuals of typically modest means, such as battered spouses, victims of human trafficking, asylees, refugees, students on scholarships, lottery winners and a host of temporary workers paid down-to-earth salaries. The $$$ Visa would merely level the polo field. 

After all, America, we can easily entice the ultra-wealthy to come to our country by citing our very own famous quotesmith, Mike Hammer, who said: "There are no pockets in a shroud."  Or, Congress, as the author of the quote at the start of this post reminds us: "Take the money and run!"

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 sage of the current age, Wikipedia, defines the term "nonmaleficence" -- from the Latin primum non nocere -- as a principle of medical ethics, one that in my view is equally applicable to the immigration sphere.  The princple holds that "given an existing problem, it may be better not to do something, or even to do nothing, than to risk causing more harm than good." Nonmaleficence comes to mind with the recurrence of an old controversy (largely out of public view) which, if its proponents win the day, could badly batter America's economy at a time when too many of our citizens are still reeling from the crash of 2008.  

The fight involves a "gallimaufry of foreign citizens" whom I listed in a 2000 article, "The Incredible Rightness of B-ing," including "truck drivers, tailors, computer professionals, missionaries, household workers, trainees, medical students, yachting crews, executives, seminar attendees, investors, athletes, corporate directors, plaintiffs, defendants, and expert witnesses."

They are not characters in search of an author, like the "lost souls in the Pirandello play." No, the members of this motley crew are all categorized as "business visitors" under U.S. immigration regulations and State Department guidance. Together with tourists, these soujourners from abroad comprise the "B" visitor visa category, and are also admitted as entrants to the U.S. with the designations "WB" (Waiver Business) and "WT" (Waiver Tourist) under the Visa Waiver Permanent Program.

In the 21st Century's first decade, however, visa hassles, security screens, faraway locations for consular interviews and other government-induced frustrations, have dissuaded legions of foreign visitors from coming to the U.S. and thus caused the loss to our economy of more than a half trillion dollars and 441,000 jobs, according to a Feb. 2010 report by Oxford Economics and the U.S. Travel Association ("The Lost Decade: The High Costs of America’s Failure to Compete for International Travel"). The problem continues in the second decade, as recent cyberspace postings (here, here, and here) attest.

Now Sen. Charles Grassley, a legislator on a vendetta to restrict legal immigration, has taken a swipe at a highly useful subcategory of business visitor, known in the arcane argot of immigration as the "B-1 in lieu of H-1" ("BiloH," for short).   In a letter to Secretaries Clinton and Napolitano (of State and Homeland Security, respectively), Sen. Grassley insists that the BiloH be eliminated as a lawful means of entry to the United States.  To understand his gripe, readers should first consider the longstanding interpretation of the BiloH here originating from the legacy agency, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), or this helpful explanation from the U.S. Embassy (Mumbai):

Any person holding a B1 or B1/B2 visa may be eligible to perform H-1B work in the United States as long as they fulfill the following criteria:

* Hold the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor’s degree

* Plan to perform H-1B-caliber work or training

* Will be paid only by their foreign employer, except reimbursement of incidental travel costs such as housing and per diem. The employee must not receive any salary from a U.S. source.

* The task can be accomplished in a short period of time.

Sen. Grassley voices concern, based on unproven allegations yet to be litigated, that the BiloH is being "abused" by multinationals to circumvent "the annual caps and prevailing wage requirements of the H-1B visa program" while "defy[ing] the intent of Congress."  

For newcomers to immigration, the labor protections of the H-1B visa category to which the Senator refers were first introduced with the enactment of the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT) -- a law that made no change to the visitor classifications or to the preexisting BiloH subcategory. As readers of this blog know, the H-1B category for workers in specialty occupations holding at least a bachelor's degree or the equivalent involves a convuluted process that only a bureacrat or pol could love.  In the years since 1990, the annual H-1B numerical quota has run out early several times, and businesses had to give up on otherwise lucrative projects because qualified workers with the needed education and skills could not be found domestically or imported until the next year's quota allotment.

In 1993, however, INS and the State Department tried to eliminate the BiloH and impose added restrictions on visitor visas, 58 Fed. Reg. 58982 (proposed November 5, 1993), 58 Fed. Reg. 40024 (proposed July 26, 1993).  Their proposals faced a storm of opposition and were never finalized.  Those opposed to eliminating the BiloH challenged the agencies' assertion, now resurrected by Sen. Grassley, that in passing new requirements on the H-1B in IMMACT, Congress must have intended (albeit silently) to eliminate the BiloH. 

Opponents, including this blogger, argued at the time that Congress must have wanted the BiloH to continue in use.  We maintained that the BiloH acts as a safety valve in situations where there is no U.S. job of an enduring nature to fill -- just a short term project that will go away before long.  This is in keeping with the agencies' view of the business visitor classification as a temporary "catch-all" category covering a wide array of commercial activities that are no threat to U.S. workers.

As even the most confirmed Luddite would be forced to admit, globalization has transformed the U.S. economy since 1993.  Thus, the importance of facilitating the entry of business visitors is even more important today than in decades past.  Regrettably, however, the State Department has responded to Sen. Grassley by rolling over.  Joseph E. Macmanus, State's Acting Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, in a letter, replied that State is working with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to "remove . . . or substantially modify . . . [the BiloH]," but this "may require Federal Register notice."

No kidding that Federal Register notice would be required.  But not just notice; how about an opportunity to comment, as well?  We've seen this pattern all too often before.  Sen. Grassley complains about a perceived abuse and the agencies cower in fear and obsequiousness -- without regard to the facts, or the legal merits of his asserted concern. If State and DHS can't stand the heat then perhaps a cabinet-level Department with a mandate to espouse immigration and thereby promote our economic interests should utter the nonmaleficence principle in plain English:  "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." 

I'm no fan of the U.S. Department of State's policies and actions in the immigration space.  State's approach, as manifested by the behavior of U.S. consular officers and the apparatchiks within the Visa Office at the Bureau of Consular Affairs, too often comes off as a mix of treacly haughtiness and callous indifference.

These Ugly American attributes are the foreseeable consequence of the grant of unbridled power. Straight-shooters call this power "consular absolutism" while the decorous dub it "consular nonreviewability." First established as a temporary, war-time measure in 1918 and then incorporated into current law by a McCarthy-era Congress that overrode President Truman's veto in 1952, the power of a single consular officer to determine the facts and refuse a U.S. visa cannot be overruled; not by the courts, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State or the President.

To be sure, sometimes State does the right thing.  Kudos to Hillary Clinton for using the immigration law to promote U.S. foreign policy objectives, as she did recently in allowing consuls to grant Iranian students multiple-entry two year visas, thereby supporting the Iranian people over their goverment. At other times, however, State stumbles and the hopes of countless innocent folks crash. Consider, for example, State's recent flubbing of the visa lottery selection process. Other pratfalls happen all too often, none more noticeably than missteps advertised in a much-watched State online resource, the Visa Bulletin.  Obscure to most Americans, the Bulletin tells watchfully waiting immigrants and their sponsors (American families and firms) how much or little, if at all, the "cut-off date" on the immigrant visa (green card) quota will move forward in the next month. 

The movement of the immigrant visa quota is less a math formula than a guesstimate.  A well-intentioned and competent State Department official analyzes reports of immigrant visa usage by consular officers (this is the easy, mathematical part), then grapples with the hard part -- the unpredictable flows of green-card issuance data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) -- and then tries to estimate the rate and volume of future USCIS grants of green cards (adjustments of status, or AOS).  The problem is that AOS grants are approved at several locations (the USCIS regional service centers and field offices and the courtrooms of the DOJ's Immigration Judges). 

Although Congress contemplates a FIFO (first-in, first-out) quota system under Immigration and Nationality Act §203(e), seasoned observers have reason to believe that what really happens behind the scenes at USCIS is much more of a catch-as-catch-can system. AOS files are housed and distributed helter-skelter in a USCIS salt-mine storage facility in the midwest, regional service centers, ICE attorney file cabinets or shopping carts wheeled between immigration courtrooms, and USCIS field offices.  Although a recent lawsuit and motion for preliminary injunction in Seattle federal court challenging the immigrant visa (IV) quota allocation system failed, apparently for reasons urged by the government, this has not stopped ever-louder public complaints.

In recent years, the quotas dramatically and unexpectedly moved backward (retrogressed) twice  -- in 2007 under the employment-based immigrant visa categories, and in January this year under the family categories -- thus adding years more to the wait.  Although this might please the anti-immigration crowd that crows about the supposed honor of doing things legally by "waiting in line" (while silently celebrating that law-abiding immigrants are kept out), it hurts American interests.  American families are needlessly separated and the ability of U.S.businesses to compete on the global stage is hamstrung, while immigrant innovations that might have been are needlessly delayed or never happen.

Much of this harm could be avoided or lessened by President Obama, and virtually all of it could be eliminated by a willing, America-first Congress.

The President could take a lesson from Disneyland and the airlines -- businesses that know something about people waiting in lines.  These businesses know that opportunities for profit and reduction of complaints can arise even while customers wait (see Disney's techniques here and here; see airlines' approaches here).

• For intending immigrants waiting abroad, President Obama could remind State and its consular corps that wannabe green card holders, despite their desire to immigrate, are still eligible under law for all manner of nonimmigrant visas, and should be granted such status liberally in deserving cases.  I'm not talking about the misnomer that many immigration agencies and uninformed immigration lawyers call "dual intent" visas, as they refer to the H-1B and L-1 temporary categories (which are more accurately described as intent-irrelevant classifications).  No I'm referring to the true dual-intent categories, such as business visitors, tourists, students, exchange visitors and trainees).  The courts and immigration precedent decisions have long ago recognized that a visa applicant or nonimmigrant entrant can have a short-term intention to enter the U.S. presently, yet harbor the desire and intent to attain green card status when and if the law and the factual circumstances so permit, as long as the individual's overriding intention is to be law-abiding.  If the person, by prior conduct in compliance with immigration law and compelling ties abroad, has an intention to immigration in the future but no intention to break the law by overstaying the period of admission or violating immigration status, then s/he has legitimate dual intent (see cases cited, FN 51).
• The President could also tighten the reigns on the State Department by instructing the Secretary of Homeland Security to exert the superior authority granted her over immigration matters abroad under the Homeland Security Act, thereby cabining any rogue behavior by State's consular officers. 
• For law-abiding nonimmigrants in the U.S., he could -- as I noted in my last post -- take executive actions that would allow early filing (but not accelerated approval) of green card applications by persons with approved immigrant visa petitions (which would allow international travel and continuing employment permission) and administratively freeze the age of minor children as of the date AOS is filed. 

Our feckless Congress -- if they truly cared about American jobs, competitiveness and deficit reduction more than political posturing and electioneering -- could also make worthy changes in our national interests:

• Congress could also accomplish legislatively all of the outcomes noted above that concurrently fall within the authority of the President.
• Congress could set an example to other countries by putting reasonable procedural due process constraints on consular officers and allowing at least meaningful administrative review and a clear right to in-person legal counsel at visa interviews and administrative hearings.
• Congress could reap significant revenue by allowing quota line-jumping for a hefty premium fee. You may say this would be unAmerican, but we already allow premium processing at USCIS and provide wealthy investors with faster access to green cards (EB-5 visas) and nonimmigrant visas (E-2 and L-1A) by tendering legal tender.  We live in a capitalist state where theatres, sports teams and concert venues sell premium seats, airlines have first class cabins, and as Ernest Hemingway astutely observed in a misquote of an F. Scott Fitzgerald line: (Fitzgerald: "The rich are different than you and me." Hemingway: "Yes, they have more money.")

If you doubt the wisdom of better customer service for immigrants, consider the following excerpt from an unsolicited email I received from a foreign citizen (whose identity will not be revealed) in response to a three-part teleconference series I'm moderating next week (Illuminating the Dark Ages: Disturbing Trends and Pleasing Solutions in Employment Based Immigration):

I tried to get some help from 11 lawyers. Not a single one accepted. One told me that being in the US was a "privilege" and not a "right". Another one warned me about any action that could irritate the immigration service. The others just answered - when they answered - by one sentence: you have no possibility because there is still two years before your priority date.

As of today, I am still struggling. Why? Because:

- I want to get back to my career

- I want to achieve a degree at the University

- I want to open a business

- I want to buy my apartment

- I have hired 15 American citizens since I am a manager in my company and I think I am not a charge for anybody in the U.S.

But as you guess, I am the only one to believe that I will succeed.

I will conclude my message here, I thought that this story could be an illustration of the precarity of people like me, and I want to mention than I had never felt such a climate of rejection, suspicion and even in some cases, hostility, until this past few months. I had always felt very happy to live in the U.S. Today, the situation has created a daily anxiety, fear for the future and feeling that I am not welcome anymore.

Thank you for your reading. 

Our government leaders often ignore elementary rules of ecology and economics when trying to grapple with America’s immigration problems.

Ecology teaches that a system cannot thrive or long function if inputs far outnumber outputs. When rainwater enters the Mississippi in a volume that exceeds the river’s carrying capacity, levees are breached, adjacent lands are flooded, and people are devastated.

Economics teaches that because we live in a world of scarce and finite resources, a more or less functioning system of resource allocation will perforce arise. Not every one of the world’s inhabitants can sport a watch made of gold when this precious metal breaches the $1,500 per ounce price point, as has occurred recently. Thus, some mode of gold-watch allocation (be it capitalism, communism, despotism or another form of wealth transfer) will inevitably surface. The same or a similar system inevitably develops to allocate food, water, clean air and the real necessities of life.

Consider then the interplay of ecology and economics as the Federal Government tries, but mostly fails, to deport foreign citizens whom Congress has declared, in a very long list, are undesirable. The process is broken and dysfunctional because ecology is ignored (many more persons are brought before immigration judges and ordered deported than actually forced to leave) and economics is given short shrift (deportation resources are not targeted to first remove the most dangerous or vile offenders).

Deportation system breakdown, like success, has multiple fathers:

• A multitude of reasons to require leaving. The grounds for deportation (or "removal," as it is technically known) range widely. Included are evildoers (such as terrorists and human predators), economic migrants (if they are without proper papers), and the unlucky or merely careless (the unfortunate, if capable, souls who are fired from a job for which a work visa had been issued; those who’ve unwittingly exceeded their required departure date by even just a day or a week; or, persons whose request for permission to stay longer than initially planned has been denied). 
• Too many ticket printers. Multiple officials within various units of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) exercise authority to start the deportation process by issuing a Notice to Appear (NTA) at a removal hearing before an immigration judge (IJ). These include the Border Patrol, within Customs and Border Protection (CBP), adjudicators employed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and the deportation police at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Surprisingly, with CBP, USCIS and ICE all issuing NTAs, there are no published statistics, by issuing authority, on the numbers or percentage of newly opened immigration cases destined to appear before the immigration courts. This is a case of the left hand, the right hand and the other right hand not knowing what their counterparts are doing.
• No bouncers. DHS has not established an orderly and intelligently-designed system to determine the integrity and propriety of each NTA that has been issued.  No designated official systematically decides which NTAs should or must be filed with the immigration court, and which ought be held in abeyance or disposed of in one of several non-judicial ways. (Almost every NTA, although styled as a "notice to appear" before a judge, contains no courtroom and date certain for the convening of a removal hearing. Instead, the document states factual allegations and legal grounds for removal and tells the person receiving it that the date and place of hearing will be announced in a future notice.) The system as presently operated requires no formal screening of NTAs to determine whether each is legally justified and sufficiently serious to warrant a hearing before a judge, potential incarceration, appellate review, and actually-enforced removal from this country. Clearly, some NTAs should be rejected. Why schedule an IJ hearing for a more-than-six-months, less-than-a-year overstay who can avoid the blotch of removal and a three-year-bar to reentry by complying with an administrative order of voluntary departure? Why waste an IJ’s time if the obvious resolution is to let time pass and await the individual’s turn in the green-card queue?
• No ushers. Only a finite number of NTAs can be processed to the point of actually removing the person to his or her country of origin. This is not just an example of the theoretical principle of prosecutorial discretion. It is a rational system of ecological management (refraining from flooding the system beyond its carrying capacity) and economic realism (allocating scarce resources of money, time and energy to process only the most compelling cases for actual removal). 
• Too few referees with too little power. Without appointing more IJs (and providing other required resources, like courtrooms, detention facilities, interpreters, law clerks, etc.) the over-issuance and over-filing of NTAs with the courts create the reality of assembly-line (in)justice and the illusion that the removal laws are carried out. Either the IJs should be given more authority to terminate proceedings where NTAs are improvidently issued or grounds for relief from removal are best handled outside the immigration courts, or, Congress must allocate sufficient judicial resources to accommodate the flood of NTAs.

* * *

Our federal lawmakers and the Obama Administration need to be told by Progressives, Tea Partiers, frugal independents and traditional partisans that the innumerable NTAs and outstanding but unfulfilled orders of removal flooding our deportation system mock both the duty to make and execute the laws faithfully, and proven principles of ecology and economics. We simply cannot and should not deport everyone for whom a technical ground of deportation can be cited. Some we should allow to stay, because they exemplify our values and their presence enriches us. Others who are really bad must go. A wise polity knows and acts on the difference.

On the first day of the second quarter of 2011, I fell for a joke.  As the Urban Dictionary (definition #2) would word it, I was "punk'd"!  I didn't merely fall for just any immigration-related ersatz news item (like the passage of the CIRAF bill reported by my colleagues in ABIL), I breathlessly embraced as the truth an emailed report I quote below and forwarded it to an immigration reporter for a prominent newspaper, asking if the reporter would like a quote from me on this "big news."

Written by an author who knows immigration parlance and the real names and titles of immigration agency officials, the disinformation that gulled me was this:

April 1, 2011

Washington, DC - U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today relief for tens of thousands of people caught in long waits for immigrant visa availability. USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas said in a statement "These people have been living in a state of limbo in the United States for too long."

This program is initially going to be targeted at immigrants who have an approved "I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker" filed on their behalf, but cannot receive permanent residence because of backlogs in immigrant visa availability.  The new "Conditional Resident" status will be extended to such individuals who have had approved petitions filed on their behalf, and who have waited at least one year for availability of an immigrant visa. The Conditional Resident status will extend the same rights as Lawful Permanent Residence with two conditions: 1) Status will be extended for periods of 3 years, renewable indefinitely, and 2) Status will conditional on an immigrant visa not being available to the holder. Once an immigrant visa is available, the Conditional Residence will automatically be converted to Lawful Permanent Residence without further application being required by the immigrant.

James McCament, Chief of the Office of Legislative Affairs indicated that this change will take place by an administrative rule change, and that a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) should be published with the details of the proposed new status within the next 30 days. After a comment period, the new rule will take effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

For more information, please contact the USCIS Office of April Fools at aprilfool@mailinator.com.

Similarly, recent immigration news -- regrettably, 100% reality-based -- suggested an April Foolsy, all-too-incredible quality.

On the enforcement front, a former Assistant Chief Counsel of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Constantine Peter Kallas, perhaps wishing that he were merely a fictional character in an April Fool's prank, received a 17-year sentence and a $297,000 fine following his conviction "for taking bribes to help immigrants fill out false paperwork to remain legally in the country."

In the Executive Branch, both President Obama and his Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, despite chants both minstrel and a cappella, threw ICE water on the notion that executive authority and administrative remedies might be used instead of police powers to provide even a fitful respite from the Administration's precedent-setting record of deporting foreign citizens largely without criminal records.  Unwilling to use the executive authority and discretion he clearly possesses, the President perhaps should consider adopting the robotic approach to immigration and border security now in a testing phase abroad.

Although Secretary Napolitano maintained that DREAM-Act-eligible students are not a priority enforcement target, neither explained why the extraordinary executive remedy of "parole in place" was used on a blanket basis as recently as in the last 12 months (with nary a peep from Congress) to help foreign citizens of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands who just as innocently as the DREAMers violated the immigration laws. Nor did the President explain (despite his claim of thinking about jobs upon rising in the morning and retiring in the evening) why he has not endorsed the Startup Visa Act, a bill that a knowledgeable staffer for Republican Senator Richard Lugar predicted has "almost no chance of passage" unless the White House supports it.

In Congress, another form of unreality was on display at a hearing Thursday of the House Judiciary Committee's Immigration Policy subcommittee. The hearing considered whether the H-1B visa category was (select one:) too generous/too restrictive and whether we should (select one:) grant/not grant more green cards for tech workers.  Trying to achieve synthesis among competing views, House Judiciary Committee Chair, Lamar Smith (R. TX), offered prepared remarks in which he noted: 

Foreign workers are receiving H-1B visas to work as fashion models, dancers and as chefs, photographers and social workers . . . There is nothing wrong with those occupations, but I’m not sure that foreign fashion models and pastry chefs are as crucial to our success in the global economy as are computer scientists . . .

Tell that to viewers, judges, creative crew and participants in the popular, economically-vibrant TV shows, America's Next Top Model, Top Chef, So You Think You Can Dance, and Dancing with the Stars, and the less familiar but promising, Talk Therapy Television. Moreover, these are strange words indeed from a Republican about the H-1B visa (a $3 billion government-revenue generator) since the GOP claims to want to minimize regulation and refrain from trying to direct the economy.

On the hustings, at "a conservative conference last week organized by immigration hardliner Rep. Steve King . . . several possible GOP candidates present (Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, even Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.)) didn't want to talk about immigration. Perhaps, the GOP is at last smelling the Hispanic java, demographically speaking.

Given these verisimilitudinous developments, I hope readers will forgive me for my (hopefully fleeting) naïveté.  After all, if Rip Van Winkle had not fallen asleep and then awakened during the Revolutionary War era, but had instead slumbered at about the middle of the last century and awakened today, he too would have concluded that nothing whatsoever changes about the U.S. immigration system, a broken process that perpetually "draw[s] . . . borders with pens that split lives like an ax."

Ever since studying Constitutional Law years ago, I've never really resolved in my mind the tension between federal supremacy and states rights. Most days, I see the need for national uniformity of law and lean toward federal power.   At other times, I appreciate the benefit of sensitivity to local conditions and the wisdom of allowing the states to serve as 50 laboratories to develop what I hope might be enlightened solutions to daunting problems.

The issue arose again this week in an offhand reply I Tweeted to an anonymous, conservative-leaning polymath, who carries the Twitter name "euandus," in response to his blog post (with identity still masked) entitled, "Immigration and Federalism in the U.S.: Should States like Arisona (sic) Participate?"   

The federalism/states-rights conundrum surfaced again in the Twitterscape, this time with a thoughtful blog post by "Chakazoid" -- a likewise unidentified inhabitant of the virtual world -- who wrote, "My Crazy Theory on Immigration."  Chazkazoid, an apparently precocious college student, wondered aloud why Georgia, in trying to outdo Arizona, proposed a Jim Crow anti-immigrant bill that suddenly became "more lenient" (his supposition: "to protect the agriculture industry").

I've viewed these state excrescences as affronts to federalism, and suggested as much to euandus, by noting that having "50 state versions of immigration laws would be as dysfunctional as were the Articles of Confederation." My hope has been that the U.S. Supreme Court in the already-argued case of U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Candaleria, will scuttle Arizona's efforts to neuter the federal preemption doctrine by attempting to regulate immigration.  After reading the transcript of oral argument in Candaleria, however, I've become less hopeful that preemption will prevail.

The prospect that the states might be given free reign to legislate in the immigration domain chills my spine like an icicle.  (It would be a mess for all of us if we were required to carry internal passports and get visas to go from state to state. And, yikes, how would I ever learn 50 state immigration codes?) 

Then I read an op-ed by Jason L. Riley in the March 5 Wall Street Journal, "Utah Seeks a Better Way on Illegal Immigration," that gave me cause for modest hope.  Utah state Senator Curtis Bramble, a Republican from Provo, has sponsored a bill with a good chance for passage that would do what has long stymied the federal Congress.  Sen. Bramble's bill would permit undocumented immigrants in the state who've passed a criminal background check to pay a fine of up to $2,500 and apply to the Utah Department of Workforce Services for a temporary work permit. The bill, assigned number 288 (as amended), is premised on the Utah Compact.  The Compact rests on five principles:

FEDERAL SOLUTIONS Immigration is a federal policy issue between the U.S. government and other countries—not Utah and other countries. We urge Utah’s congressional delegation, and others, to lead efforts to strengthen federal laws and protect our national borders. We urge state leaders to adopt reasonable policies addressing immigrants in Utah.

LAW ENFORCEMENT We respect the rule of law and support law enforcement’s professional judgment and discretion. Local law enforcement resources should focus on criminal activities, not civil violations of federal code.

FAMILIES Strong families are the foundation of successful communities. We oppose policies that unnecessarily separate families. We champion policies that support families and improve the health, education and well-being of all Utah children.

ECONOMY Utah is best served by a free-market philosophy that maximizes individual freedom and opportunity. We acknowledge the economic role immigrants play as workers and taxpayers. Utah’s immigration policies must reaffirm our global reputation as a welcoming and business-friendly state.

A FREE SOCIETY Immigrants are integrated into communities across Utah. We must adopt a humane approach to this reality, reflecting our unique culture, history and spirit of inclusion. The way we treat immigrants will say more about us as a free society and less about our immigrant neighbors. Utah should always be a place that welcomes people of goodwill.

A leading proponent of Utah Bill 288, Natalie Gochnour, Chief Economist for the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, explained her support to Riley in his Wall Street Journal op-ed: 

Utah has a growing economy that's ready and able to put people to work. Our business leaders are saying, 'Let's not diminish our labor supply.  Let's not reduce our customer base.  Let's not raise business costs. Let's not detract from outside investment, convention business [and] tourism.'

Of course, to be effectual, Utah's guest worker program would likely need a federal waiver (unless Candaleria is decided in Arizona's favor). Existing precedent for the delegation of authority over immigration benefits already exists with the federal government's Conrad 30 program, which allows each state to sponsor physicians for waiver of the two-year, home-country residence requirement of the J-1 Exchange Visitor visa category.  (Utah, by the way, is not alone in proposing that states mobilize to gain the ability to issue internal work visas, as Ezra Klein of The Washington Post has argued persuasively.)

While Utah moves forward on a humane and pragmatic state-level strategy, Chakazoid, ever the optimist, still harbors hope for a federal solution:

Whatever the underlying issue for the slow progress on immigration, I have faith that we will come to our senses. We should be more welcoming to immigrants from every country and find a way to once and for all deal with the 12 million illegal immigrants already here. The solution should be pragmatic, involve a comprehensive reform, and benefit our economy, along with a bipartisan effort. We may sit here and play the blame game, as congress has been doing for the past decade, but it is this very game in which America is losing.

For my part, I see less reason for optimism.  I join in the "stinging rebuke" leveled in the March issue of Arizona Attorney by my former partner and recently-retired Chief Counsel of USCIS, Roxana Bacon, who candidly decried the "legislative irresponsibility and the lack of executive leadership" of official Washington in the passage below (emphasis mine):

Forget that Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) died a premature death last spring. Charles Schumer and Lindsay Graham, two heavy hitters, refused even to introduce the modest CIR legislation, drafted largely by DHS, because they were unable to get a single other Senator to sign on. Leadership, anyone?

The White House was mostly MIA, with attention so glued to other matters that even a rousing march to the Capitol by Dream Act kids and thousands of advocates merited no real action.  Indifference, anyone?

. . . [USCIS] stayed underground, armed with bureaucratic plans and a PR machine rather than visionary policy statements or practical field directives that would move us forward. Timidity, anyone?

However, not everyone stood down.  CBP and ICE went into overdrive to detain more people, remove more people, and exercise less discretion than at any time in our nation's modern history.  . . . When advocacy groups questioned this 180-degree pivot from the campaign, they were told that no reform would be politically feasible until the anti-immigrant politicians were convinced that this Administration was tough on immigration.  The groups who hijacked the immigration conversation will never be appeased.  Not a good strategy. . . . [Reform] by increased enforcement was hardly the campaign promise. Duplicity, anyone?

Roxie Bacon likewise looks to the states "as the most logical and invested laboratories to sort through the complications inherent in deciding what a vital and secure immigration law should look like," not to mention the courts, "emboldened advocates, who stand up to meanness and indifference in the face of human suffering and need, and [to] inventive lawyers representing them."

It's not too late for the Federales in DC to renounce their "collective ostriching," as Roxie describes their posturing.  Perhaps now, with the economy in rebound, unemployment finally less than 9%, and the states at the ramparts poised to usurp the federal role in immigration policy, our pusillanimous "leaders" in Washington will at last take pragmatic and humane steps to pass comprehensive reform, or at least grant Utah and other states the right to fix our dysfunctional system. 

* * *

POSTSCRIPT In a hectic day and night of amendments and maneuvers, the Utah legislature passed two immigration-related measures that together comprise comprehensive immigration reform at the state level.  One of these, HB 116, creates a Utah guest worker immigration program. The other, HB 497, is said to focus on serious crimes.  The federalism/states-rights tension continues. 

Since January 25, the events in Cairo's Tahrir (Liberation) Square have transfixed the world.  Following on the heels of the Tunisian people's overthrow of their despot, the Egyptian uprising reveals a fundamental law of physics: In a closed system, energy can be neither created nor destroyed. 

So too in politics.  Universal political energy -- the pent-up longing for freedom and self-determination -- is now leveraged and magnified in new and unpredictable ways by Twitter and Facebook. Inexorably, that energy, as the Egyptian protestors have shown us, will ultimately be released. 

Hosni Mubarak's 30-year authoritarian, pressure-cooker reign, supported throughout by the unmonitored and unaccountable Egyptian police, is coming to an end. And once again, as many times before, the American government and political establishment have been caught flat-footed, on the wrong side of history, knocked over by popular energy, while supporting a fallen dictator.

 A similar dynamic is playing out inside America.  The tightening of the border by "deploying historic levels of manpower, resources and technology and increasing collaboration with federal, state, local and tribal, and Mexican partners" has achieved unprecedented levels of impregnability -- according to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in remarks at the University of Texas in El Paso last week.  America is rapidly becoming a closed system. 

At the same time, the energy-pressure readings -- of Latinos, Asians and other immigrant groups who rightly perceive themselves as targets of xenophobia -- are escalating.  As reported by the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute and the Government Accountability Office, the immigration enforcers, in league with state, regional and city police agencies operating under the Congressionally authorized 287(g) program, are largely unmonitored and unaccountable.  The 287(g) program, touted as a means of apprehending and removing dangerous foreign felons, has instead gone "rogue" and mostly netted petty immigration violators and small-scale misdemeanants, while arousing ire and fear in local immigrant communities. 

As the energy of righteous anger builds, not only traditional Democrats but even conservative Latinos chide President Obama for abandoning his campaign promises, and failing to try hard, let alone deliver, on immigration reform. The Republicans (notwithstanding Norm Coleman's recent rebuke of Tom Tancredo) are even more adrift on immigration, mounting a campaign against "anchor babies" and trying to override the 14th amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship.

Meantime, despite a virulent economic recession and a record number of deportations, the unauthorized immigrant population (11.2 million in 2010) remains virtually unchanged from the year before, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. 

All of the essential requirements for an energized reaction are present. DREAMers have nowhere to go but to the street and to their smartphones.  Spanish- and other foreign-language media will report growing resentment, anger and the desire for justice among their U.S. citizen and immigrant readers  -- reporting largely unnoticed in the Anglo mediascape.  U.S. politicians of every stripe, like Hosni Mubarak, will be caught unawares when the energy is released. 

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was correct:  "The world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes."  To politicos of the left and right, the only proper response is, "Duh!"