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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Keyrock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The purpose of the [Immigration and Nationality Act is] to prevent an influx of aliens which the economy of individual localities [cannot] absorb. . . . Entrepreneurs do not compete as skilled laborers. The activities of each entrepreneur are generally unique to his own enterprise, often requiring a special balance of skill, courage, intuition and knowledge. . . . The same can be said of the activities of an artist.

Konishi V. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 661 F.2d 818 (9CA, 1981)(citations and quote marks omitted)

Immigration entrepreneurship is all the rage.  Comprehensive immigration reformers on the left and right agree that entrepreneurs beget innovation which begets jobs for Americans. Our history proves it. Research studies support the link.   Foreign entrepreneurs are encouraged to come through the "front door." The President wants to welcome more of them. Members of Congress, hoping to avoid stemming the tide of innovation, are proposing a new flow of workers, especially in the STEM fields of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math with a three's-the-charm bill, the Startup Act 3.0.  

In addition, a shoeleather-avoidant "Virtual March for Immigration Reform," dubbed the "March for Innovation," is set for a day this spring in order "to ensure that the broad immigration bills being considered in Congress include provisions to boost innovation and entrepreneurship, and . . . to seize the moment and get immigration reform passed."

While we obsess on the need to invite more immigrant entrepreneurs, why is there no comparable fixation on the importance of welcoming entrepreneurship's kissing cousin, creativity?

We acknowledge the creativity of knowledge workers, yet we fail to see the urgency of freely inviting members of the creative classes, our free-lance artists, writers, journalists, poets, painters, inspirational speakers, filmmakers, bloggers, videographers, performing artists, multi-media stylists and other creativity entrepreneurs.  As the artist, Konishi, convinced the court, the "activities of each entrepreneur are generally unique to his own enterprise, often requiring a special balance of skill, courage, intuition and knowledge. . . . The same can be said of the activities of an artist."

Regrettably for America, however, our immigration laws are just as broken and dysfunctional when applied to creatives as to entrepreneurs. Foreign artists, even if they possess "extraordinary ability," or manifest their artistry in "culturally unique" ways, must still be tied to an established U.S. agent or an employer.  They must also present a "consultation" from a peer group (usually a labor union that extorts a protectionist fee to confirm for the benefit of Homeland Security that its guild members' would accept the foreign artist into the fold on payment of union dues). Similar restrictions apply to media free-lancers who must present journalistic credentials and a contract with a U.S. company even if they propose to enter the U.S. to offer or produce creatively presented information or education.

Surprisingly, although we recognize the compelling need to eliminate immigration barriers for noncitizen entrepreneurs, we ignore the job-creating qualities of foreign artists, even though both groups share Steve Jobs' remarkable insight into the creative process -- one that likewise motivates many immigrants to embark for America:

If you want to live your life in a creative way, as an artist, you have to not look back too much. You have to be willing to take whatever you’ve done and whoever you were and throw them away. The more the outside world tries to reinforce an image of you, the harder it is to continue to be an artist, which is why a lot of times, artists have to say, “Bye. I have to go. I’m going crazy and I’m getting out of here.” 

Artists and creatives are everywhere, yet America mostly spurns them. Our legislators and the Obama Administration, just like the commissars of the old Soviet Union, must ultimately wake up to the reality that the Federales have no special talent for picking winners, and that planned economies, more often than not, tend to overlook the budding artist and the possibly math-phobic virtuoso.  

Let us also therefore revise our immigration laws to welcome these promising, early-stage artistic strangers even before they find an audience.  With fair and open-hearted screening processes we surely can craft a way to identify creatives offering the potential to spawn new art forms, new industries and new jobs.

"U.S. immigration law is like stratified rock, revealing layer on layer of Congressional accretions laid down over many years, with the superstructure upended in tectonic shifts triggered by the baffling and contradictory interpretations of multiple agencies and courts." 

Nothing of substance has changed since I offered that post last August, save for a groundbreaking election that reversed years of Republican opposition and Democratic indifference, leading to a bipartisan effort to reform the immigration laws comprehensively. 

While federal legislators and the Obama Administration are putting in place new scaffolding for immigration reform, the foundation remains broken and shaky. A path to citizenship, enhanced border security, disincentives to illegal entry and employment, and adequate future flows of legal workers are all well and good.  But the superstructure of the new immigration system will topple and the temptation to enter illegally or overstay will return if the basic approach to justice, fairness and due process is not dramatically transformed.

Reforms of the immigration justice system could conceivably be narrow or wide-ranging.  A necessary, if partial, solution -- just a first step -- would reform the appellate process within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).   This agency countenances a woefully unjust appellate body, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), that reviews decisions of USCIS field offices and regional service centers denying requests for immigration benefits submitted by American and foreign citizens and U.S. employers.

As I've noted recently, the AAO “is staffed by too many non-lawyers, issuing too many legally dubious and inordinately delayed decisions, without rules of court, from within the same agency (USCIS) that issued the initial decision, while denying many parties with legal interests in the outcome an opportunity to be heard or affording a means to preserve the status quo (e.g., uninterrupted employment authorization) when an appeal remains pending.” The AAO, however, is only part of the problem; reforms to the system of administrative justice at USCIS must be holistic and comprehensive. 

Administrative reform (which Congress should enact into law rather than trust the agency to promulgate) must begin with a change to the USCIS rules which now limit the types of parties (a) who are permitted to appear before the agency and (b) the even smaller population of persons and organizations allowed to appeal an adverse decision. Moreover, the initial decision by a USCIS adjudicator must include an articulation of the evidence submitted and a detailed ruling on each of the legal issues raised.

In all, I offer "25 Proposed Reforms to the Administrative Appellate Process within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services," and welcome reader commentary.  These suggestions, if adopted, would improve the system of immigration justice, but they only nip at solutions. 

Real justice reforms in the immigration arena would produce efficiencies, cost savings, improved access to justice, and beneficial changes to the way binding legal precedents are decided.  As detailed at length in a February 27, 2013 New York Law Journal article, "Appealing Alternatives: Immigration Justice System Re-Imagined," by Ted J. Chiappari and me, Congress should establish a single Federal Immigration Court with full powers under Article I of the Constitution to hear appeals of all immigration-related administrative decisions rendered by the several agencies and departments in Washington. 

Such reforms would also upgrade the professionalism and commitment to zealous advocacy of the immigration bar (whether in private practice or government service), while making the law more understandable and accessible to the public and the growing numbers of lawyers whose substantive expertise is other than immigration but who laudably engage in providing pro bono immigration legal services to individuals and non-profits. 

Modeled after the Federal Bankruptcy Court, the proposed Federal Immigration Court would allow judges to develop the necessary expertise in all areas of immigration law.  It would also preclude the announcement by the federal agencies and departments of policy by administrative ruling rather than by the promulgation of proposed rules under the Administrative Procedure Act, which offers the public prior notice and the opportunity to comment before any immigration regulation would be made final.

So let's cut to the chase.  Here is the essential kernel of thought to digest from the introduction and conclusion of the cited New York Law Journal article:

If, as author Robert Sherrill maintained in his 1970 book, Military Justice is to Justice as Military Music is to Music, then immigration justice in 21st Century America is as melodious as an atonal, off-pitch cacophony.  The forms and forums for truth-seeking and dispute resolution under the U.S. immigration system are wide-ranging, largely counter-intuitive and often too dysfunctional to mete out true justice. . . .

[I]mmigration justice today is unmelodious and painful to sit through.  With a new Immigration Court as orchestral director, however, the several administrative agencies and immigration stakeholders sitting in musicians’ chairs could render a tour de force ensemble production, a command performance to delight Lady Justice and all citizens, foreign and domestic alike, who care deeply for her continued health and well-being.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For examples in the EB-5 context see:

• Immigration's NannyStateGate: Picking EB-5 Winners and Losers
• The EB-5 Investor Immigration Program: Green Shoots or Chutes and Ladders?
• Immigration-Agency Lawbreaking Revealed: USCIS's EB-5 "Tenant-Occupancy" Scandal
• What Are We Paying for? USCIS and the I-526 Exemplar Process
• Dollars and Jobs for EB-5 Green Cards: A Challenging Route to U.S. Residency
• The Relevance of U.S. Securities Laws to Immigrant Investors, Eb-5 Regional Centers and Their Advisors
• Investing in America through the E-2 and EB-5 Visa Categories.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Blogger’s note:  Today’s guest blog is by my friend and scholarly colleague, Nathan Waxman.  Nathan revisits an issue he first considered eight years ago in this space when he bemoaned the increasingly poor quality of ethnically authentic food in New York City, and laid the blame upon our immigration laws.  Having suffered through several more years of culinary displeasure, and at last seeing a glimmer of hope for immigration reform, Nathan now offers an analysis of the current immigration mess and an enlightened solution.]

A New Immigration Recipe:

Specialty Chefs Need a Dream Act Too!

By Nathan Waxman

A guest blog by this author in April 2005 (“Is That Chipotle in My Sushi?”) reported on the adverse interplay of two laws:  the 1996 enactment of Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 212(a)(9) and the sunsetting of INA § 245(i) in April 2001. That post noted how the rapidly proliferating small-to-medium sized, and particularly family-owned, ethnic restaurants were coping, largely unsuccessfully, with the distasteful consequences of Congress’s enactment of § 212(a)(9), the “unlawful presence” bar of up to ten years prohibiting the grant of permanent residence to most aliens who have tallied more than 12 months of unauthorized stay in the United States. To add to the dyspepsia, Congress had failed to renew a 1994 law, the temporary but vital remedy of § 245(i), which allowed qualified immigrants who had failed to maintain legal status nonetheless to obtain a green card in the U.S. through adjustment of status. 

Fast forward eight years. Despite the economic doldrums, gastronomic diversity is here to stay.

• Thai restaurants can be found on the remote eastern shore of Virginia, just miles from the island home of the fabled wild ponies of Assateague. Indeed, once concentrated in major urban centers, Thai and Vietnamese (especially pho) restaurants are now nearly as common as pancake houses in small-town middle America.
• Taquerias  increasingly outnumber diners and “greasy spoons” along the highways and byways of America, from Alabama to Oregon.
• Ethiopian and other African cuisines have escaped the gravitational pull of coastal urban centers and can be found in medium-sized cities and suburbs throughout the country.
• Regional Indian and Chinese food has penetrated small-town America, and fusion restaurants have burst out of the urban bubble and are thriving in smaller cities and towns throughout the country. 

So who is browning the pungent Indian fenugreek and stewing the fiery Ethiopian doro wat?  

In 2005, restaurant owners were already recruiting staff of heterogeneous ethnicity from the available populations of experienced work-authorized kitchen crew. However, at the time of the 2005 blog post, few foresaw that the number of  people seeking third employment-based preference immigrant visas would cause a persistent retrogression of the quota and in turn would be as toxic as a poorly-filleted fugu by virtually eliminating labor certification and immigrant visa sponsorship as viable options for filling permanent positions in the ethnic restaurant industry.

Clearly, the malaise of 2005 has deteriorated into a debilitating chronic condition for small-to-midsized local restaurants serving ethnic cuisines. 

Skilled advocacy, when the facts are right, can enable elite restaurants, ethnic or otherwise,  to use such nonimmigrant visa categories as H-1B, E,  L-1 or O-1 visas, or the EB-1 or EB-2 immigrant mechanisms, to secure the services of a rarefied stratum of culinary professionals or managers. However, the typical independently-owned ethnic restaurant, whether in the America's Heartland or in an  emerging urban neighborhood, cannot ethically or practically avail itself of these more difficult nonimmigrant visas or, indeed, of equally challenging immigrant visa sponsorship these days. 

The four case scenarios below show how the inadequacies of U.S. immigration law have made it increasingly difficult for small-to-medium sized ethnic restaurants to staff their kitchens with qualified workers who can please demanding restaurant patrons seeking the best in ethnic cuisines.

A pioneering  authentic Thai restaurant in the Chicago area

A Thai couple has run several authentic Thai cuisine restaurants on Chicago’s north side and in Chicago’s northern  suburbs since the early 1980s. While the owners obtained residence in the early 90s using the L-1A / EB-1(3) two-step that lets experienced multinational managers or executives become permanent residents as managers or executives of a U.S.-based business, few small ethnic restaurants today can successfully rely on an intracompany transfer. In the ensuing years, their family-style restaurants won accolades by using fresh and authentic Thai ingredients, and they sponsored several chefs who invoked the clemency afforded by the now virtually dead § 245(i).

Since 2005, our restaurateurs have tried, unsuccessfully, to recruit qualified Thai cuisine chefs from the U.S. worker population. While labor certifications in 2005 (prior to the implementation of the U.S. Department of Labor’s PERM online program in that year) were mired in the Department’s mismanaged attempt to reduce backlogs, the employment third preference for other than China and India was generally current. 

Ironically, not long after the implementation of PERM, around the time of our last blog, retrogression set in and has steamrolled to the point that Worldwide EB-3 is more than six years backlogged.  Thus, the Thai restaurateurs in Chicago, though close to retirement, remain trapped in the kitchen.  They are faced with the impossible dilemma of waiting six or more years to bring a chef over from abroad or, on the other hand, risking employer sanctions in the futile attempt to obtain permanent residence for a non-work-authorized, albeit qualified, domestic employee. They are fully aware that, without Congressional reinstitution of  § 245(i), or amendment of  § 212(a)(9) to provide realistic  opportunities for exemption from the draconian 10-year bar, labor certification would be a colossal waste of resources and time. 

An Armenian restaurant in a working-class New Jersey town

In 2003, the owner-operator sponsored a chef who had been grandfathered under § 245(i) and who left employment for greener pastures while awaiting certification of his pre-PERM labor certification.

Unable to recruit a qualified chef domestically, the owner substituted a chef who was working in the capital and largest city of Armenia, Yerevan. After overcoming numerous tribulations, in 2011 the substitute chef finally appeared before the U.S. Consulate in Yerevan. The Consul, however, requested additional financial documentation and proof that the sponsoring restaurant still existed and still intended to employ the beneficiary. Sadly, the sponsoring restaurant had fallen on hard times in the small north Jersey town of privately owned homes, half of which were underwater on their mortgages. The Consul denied the visa and returned the file to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for a recommended revocation. Ironically, the owner, himself a chef of modest skill who had been doing the cooking since the original beneficiary left six years previously, attributed the failure of his business not just to the decline of the town, but to his inability to hire a chef well versed in the nuances of authentic Armenian cuisine.

A pricey Mughlai tandoori restaurant in Manhattan’s East 50s

A restaurant dedicated to preserving luxe Delhi-style tandoori (clay oven) traditions sought the services of a highly skilled chef working at a 5-star tandoori palace in Delhi, India. Like the unsuccessful Armenian chef in Yerevan, the tandoori chef had never been to the United States. The restaurant in New York filed a labor certification in early 2003.  A full decade later, the restaurant, which has undergone several changes in management, still awaits a visa appointment in light of the decades-long Indian EB-3 green card backlog.  The restaurant has made do with moderately skilled chefs, including one whose original training had been at a brick oven pizzeria, but the results are less than stellar. Tandoori calzone, anyone?

A Chinese restaurant in the northernmost county of Maine

Disclaimer:  I have never represented Mai Tai restaurant in Presque Isle, Maine, nor have I eaten there. However, I had heard of it even prior to its moment of infamy, when it was featured in ICE’s November 15, 2012 press release trumpeting Mai Tai’s payment of $13,744 for Form I-9 (Employment Eligibility Verification)  employer-sanction violations. I was familiar with Mai Tai because I have visited several Chinese nationals, clients of mine, who teach at the Presque Isle campus of the University of Maine (UMPI), located a few blocks down US 1 from Mai Tai.

Notwithstanding Mai Tai’s hokey 1950s-esque name, my clients at UMPI assured me that the beleaguered restaurant presented a pretty decent North American version of Chinese food, and was one of the only places in town where you can get green vegetables. Presque Isle, after all, is deep in the north woods of Maine and far from the clambakes and lobster pots of cozy Kennebunkport.  

While we cannot be sure what motivated Mai Tai to transgress the laws against hiring the unauthorized, it’s easy to imagine how challenging it must be to hire specialty chefs in that land of doughnuts, mooseburgers and French fries. While not as backlogged as India’s EB-3, China’s EB-3 is still set back well over six years. We lack reliable statistics on the longevity of newly established independent restaurants in Presque Isle, but a casual stroll down Third Avenue in Manhattan will confirm that the life expectancy of newly established non-franchised ethnic restaurants in the U.S. is much less than the half-life of plutonium. The fact is, most restaurants cannot wait six years, much less six months, to on-board a qualified chef.

* * *

In my 2005 post, I complained that § 212(a)(9)’s sting and § 245(i)’s demise were depriving the food-lovers among us of faithful representations of traditional ethnic dishes, whether they may be Venezuelan arepas (corn cakes) or Finnish pasties (meat- and vegetable-filled pastries). Now we must suffer unpalatable visa backlogs in the employment-based third preference.

Will Congress come to our aid?

Will Congress rescue the many food aficionados among us with a Dream Act for restaurant workers?

And, while they’re at it, can they make it easier for the local repair shop to bring in a German mechanic to fix my European diesel?

Ultimately, tax-paying American employers who satisfy the Department of Labor’s test of labor market unavailability through the PERM process should be able to serve their constituents and communities by adding to their work force tax-paying employees earning the prevailing wage, whether at a restaurant, a car repair shop, or a foreign language school. 

As we count out the final hours of 2012, let's recall the highs and lows of the past year in America's dysfunctional immigration ecosphere.

Nation of Immigrators is pleased to confer its third annual IMMI Awards. (Full disclosure: As in past years, these are my personal choices. If you disagree or believe I've missed an obvious awardee, feel free to comment below or post it on Twitter with the hashtag "#2012IMMIS," and be sure to check out our previous awardees here: 2010 IMMIs & 2011 IMMIs).

The 2012 IMMI Awardees

Immigration Word of the Year. This year's word could well have been "omnishambles" -- "a thoroughly mismanaged situation notable for a chain of errors" -- chosen by Oxford University Press, yet aptly suited to our perversely American form of immigration regulation. British novelist, Ian McEwan, in his new book, Sweet Tooth, while explaining the problems of England's intelligence agencies in the 1970s, could well have been describing the federal and state authorities that administer and enforce America's omnishambled immigration laws when he observed:

Too many agencies, too many bureaucracies defending their corners, too many points of demarcation, insufficient centralized control.  

Instead, the IMMI goes to "self-deportation" (Mitt Romney's proposed solution to illegal immigration), a hyphenated word that (even someone as intemperate as Donald Trump recognized) contributed mightily to his self-immolation as GOP candidate for President:

[Romney] had a crazy policy of self deportation which was maniacal. . . . It sounded as bad as it was, and he lost all of the Latino vote . . . He lost the Asian vote. He lost everybody who is inspired to come into this country.

Belated Gumption.  For modest courage expressed ever so slowly, the award goes to President Obama for his authorization through the Homeland Security Department of relief for a slice of the DREAMer population with the implementation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. With exit-polls showing that 57% of Americans approve of DACA, imagine how many more DACA applications could have been approved and lives restored had the President used his long established executive authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion when the concept of deferred action was proposed early in his first term. Consider also how DACA might have benefited even more minors brought or required to remain here illegally, such as DREAMer extraordinaire Jose Antonio Vargas (who, at 31.5 years old when the program rules were set up, was six months too old to receive DACA relief), had the program applied to all minors and not set stingy bright-line rules that kowtowed unduly to past DREAM Act proposals in Congress.  

Hit the Road Jack/Home-Wrecker. President Obama reprises his role as "Deporter in Chief" and, as in past years, wins another IMMI.  With over 400,000 deportations in 2012 -- an all-time high -- the President also receives the Home-Wrecker IMMI. According to recently released federal data, between July 1, 2010 and September 31, 2012, almost 205,000 deportation orders were issued for parents with U.S. citizen children, thereby destroying the lives of even more American kids.  With the recent announcement that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will stop asking local police to turn over to ICE immigrants arrested as petty offenders, perhaps fewer deportations will result next year -- especially if Congress legislates a path to legal status and citizenship for the undocumented.  Recent statistics from the Immigration Courts, showing case closures resulting in deportation orders or grants of voluntary departure down to 56.3% from 70.2% two years ago, also support a prediction (fingers crossed) that the President will not receive another IMMI in this category.

Ignorable, Ignoble Person. The IMMI goes to nativist Tom Tancredo, former Colorado representative and gubernatorial candidate, who urged Republicans after November's election not to let strict immigration laws become the scapegoat for their loss at the polls ("while scapegoating the immigration issue was to be expected from the Republican establishment following the Romney defeat, it is sad and disappointing to see a few conservatives stampeded into endorsing suicidal proposals").  Tancredo nudged out Kris Kobach for this year's IMMI because he also mocked Sen. Michael Bennet for his leading role in developing the Colorado Compact, a balanced approach to comprehensive immigration reform.

Not Especially Nimble. While the primary immigration benefits agency, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), has continued its laudable efforts in 2012 to improve transparency, public engagement and responsiveness (especially on humanitarian concerns, such as relief for foreign citizens adversely affected by Hurricane Sandy), the IMMI for lack of speed and agility on business immigration concerns nonetheless must go to this beleaguered agency. USCIS still has not released its promised rule on employment authorization for spouses of certain H-1B workers, or met its year-end deadline on stateside provisional waivers for immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, and has not issued clarifying guidance on L-1B specialized-knowledge requirements promised last January.  Other longstanding problems remain, including the lack of meaningful impact from its Entrepreneurs-in-Residence program (beyond a nifty website with comforting assurances), the persistence of an anti-entrepreneur animus at the Regional Service Centers, the need to put out for re-bid the agency's contract on its Transformation program for the online submission of immigration forms, and the issuance of a "guidance memorandum" offering seemingly helpful but still befuddling instructions on the EB-5 investor issue of "tenant occupancy" that USCIS first raised officially last February.

Constitutional Illiteracy.  The IMMI for misinterpreting the Bill of Rights goes to the 97,062+ yokels who in a petition to the White House have lambasted CNN host Piers Morgan and urged this Brit's deportation for his post-Newtown critique of America's woeful failure to regulate firearms. No one explained their illiteracy better than Pilar Marrero, author of Killing The American Dream: How anti immigration extremists are destroying the nation, who posted this on Facebook:

So people want to deport Piers Morgan because he aired anti gun views and he´s an "alien", supposedly from out of space. 2 things to remember: before the Second, there is a First amendment. And this country was built by foreigners with weird accents who were always looked at with suspicion by the previous foreigners with weird accents who came first. The only welcoming ones [were] the natives. Unfortunately for them.

Hopeful Baby Steps.  The IMMI goes to U.S. Customs and Border Protection for two recent actions.  CBP reported that it would no longer allow its agents to serve as interpreters for non-English speakers in interrogations by other law enforcement agencies.  It also announced that it would undertake a review of current agency practices in the use of force by its border agents.

No Stale Wine before its Time. This IMMI goes to the government agency which best proves the maxim "justice delayed is justice denied":  The Labor Department's Office of Foreign Labor Certification dramatically lagged from prior periods in the pace of labor certifications. Overall permanent labor certifications decreased by 15.67% between FY10 and FY11. Although the Information sector and Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services sector experienced increases, most other sectors witnessed large decreases in certifications in FY11: Educational Services (46.67%), Health Care and Social Assistance (34.23%), Retail Trade (33.19%), Wholesale Trade (21.77%), Accommodations and Food Services (60.31%), Construction (65.43%), Transportation and Warehousing (39.90%), and Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation (43.01%).

Worst Immigration Law. Although a colleague, Nolan Rappaport, has nominated the Registry provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act for the IMMI, the award goes to another nominee. Registry allows an individual who has been physically present in the U.S. for a prescribed number of years to be granted a green card despite unlawful status.  Nolan notes:

The eligibility date hasn't been updated since the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 advanced it to January 1, 1972. That was more than a quarter of a century ago. It's shameful that such a useful humanitarian provision has not been updated in so many years. With the present date, the residence period has to be more than 40 years. When it was enacted in 1929, it required entry prior to June 3, 1921, which was a residence period of only 8 years.

However shameful the failure to update the waiting period for registry is, even worse is the 1996 law that created mandatory detention of immigrants without benefit of appointed counsel, as Prof. Mark Noferi of Brooklyn Law School persuasively demonstrates.

Lost in the Wilderness. The Republican party, still stinging from its election defeat and overwhelming rejection by the fast-growing Latino and Asian cohorts of the American electorate, wins the "Dr. Livingstone, I presume" IMMI. Persisting in their special brand of akrasia (weakness of will; acting in a way contrary to one's sincerely held moral values).  Despite proclamations that they will cooperate in enacting comprehensive immigration reforms, Republicans have yet to formulate a welcoming agenda on immigration and apparently can't yet fathom that immigration reform would be both good economics and good politics.  Their new leader of the House Immigration Subcommittee, Rep. Trey Gowdy, is an unabashed opponent of immigration.  Even the anti-immigration hawk, Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, knows that Gowdy's appointment bodes ill for comprehensive immigration reform, because it "suggests . . . that the House Republicans aren't going to allow themselves to be stampeded by this amnesty panic because Gowdy is pretty hawkish on immigration . . ."

Taxing Non-Solutions.  The IMMI for non-starter immigration-reform proposal goes jointly to Prof. Giovanni Peri, Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute, and Microsoft. While each of these awardees is a respected and thoughtful contributor to the immigration-reform debate, each offers a variation of a proposal to impose a tax as the visa-entry fee to America. As I've noted elsewhere, taxing the right to enter the country smacks too much of "18th Century slave auctions."  There are many better ways to regulate immigration than to tax it and thereby prod our trading partners and global competitors to tax American entrepreneurs in foreign lands.

A Supreme Demonstration of Supremacy. The IMMI goes to the U.S. Supreme Court majority that vanquished virtually all of Arizona's nativist law, SB 1070.  Holding that the states must kneel to federal supremacy over immigration, the Court struck down all but one of the Arizona law's provisions, and left it to the lower courts to determine whether in practice the surviving section can pass constitutional muster.

Head in the Derriere.  This year's IMMI goes to those feckless employers throughout America who fail to recognize that -- no matter what happens on comprehensive immigration reform -- the Feds are coming to check your business's immigration papers.  Immigration audits were at their highest in history this past year.  That trend will only continue to rise.  Be forewarned and take some crumb-y advice.

* * *

Well, thats a wrap for our 2012 IMMI awardees.  The next 12 months will no doubt produce another bumper crop of candidates for the IMMI.

Meantime, as we close out the year, this blogger reverently contemplates a prayer penned by Rev. Robert L. DeMoss II of Christchurch in Montgomery, Alabama.  Although he offers it on behalf of consular officers, I would broaden the reach of his divinely-directed plea to extend blessings to all of our nation's immigration officials:

Almighty God, May Your love fill our souls, that we might be vessels of peace and grace to bring to this hurting and anxious world. Bless especially our Foreign Service officers, who endeavor to safeguard our freedom and welcome the stranger, as the voice ...and face of America. Guide them with Your wisdom and discernment, give them grace under pressure, and fill them with the radiance of compassion and understanding, all for Your love's sake. Protect, bless, and be with them now and throughout the New Year ahead, as they continue to serve our country with a valiant heart, a keen mind, and a noble spirit. Amen.

“ And there took place . . . [in the U.S. Senate] so many “extended discussions” of measures to keep them from coming to a vote that the device got a name, “filibuster,” from the Dutch word vrijbuiter, which means “freebooter” or “pirate,” and which passed into the Spanish as filibustero, because the sleek, swift ship used by Caribbean pirates was called a filibote, and into legislative parlance because the device was, after all, a pirating, or hijacking, of the very heart of the legislative process. ...”

Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, [Vol.] III, by Robert A. Caro

The fight to end the pirating of legislative progress, the effort by Sen. Harry Reid (Democratic Majority Leader), and supported by President Obama, to soften the rough edges of the filibuster, is the talk of Washington and the media.   If Reid's proposals were as drastic as Sen. Mitch McConnell (GOP Minority Leader) asserts, this alleged wielding of the "nuclear option" -- the cutting off of otherwise unlimited debate in the Senate --  might threaten the precious checks and balances of constitutional government.  But McConnell weeps alligator tears.

Reid proposes only to modify but not eliminate filibusters of the type memorialized by Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, where a steadfast minority of senators speak from the well and address the "World's Greatest Deliberative Body" without respite.  Majority Leader Reid would merely reverse the more recent relaxation of the filibuster that allows a senator to express the intention to filibuster, thereby requiring a 60-vote majority to invoke cloture (a call to vote on a pending bill).  Reid would make changes that -- as Washington Post reporter, Ezra Klein, notes -- are "not dramatic":

[Sen. Reid] wants to be able to make the motion to debate a bill -- but not the vote to pass it -- immune to the filibuster; he wants the time it would take to break a filibuster to be shorter; and he wants whoever is filibustering to have to hold the floor of the Senate and talk.

Klein also suggests:

None of these changes would alter the basic reality of the modern U.S. Senate, which is that it takes 60 votes to get almost anything done. In my view, that means they wouldn’t do much to fix the Senate at all. (Emphasis in original.)

His assessment is too pessimistic. With just a bit more tweaking of the filibuster, say, by ending debate on a vote of 57 senators, gridlock would be reduced.  Furthermore, with such a change, the sway of the swing vote -- just as in the Supreme Court where Justice Anthony Kennedy carries great clout -- would minimize polarization.  It would also promote greater compromise and empower moderates of the minority party and independents. 

We no longer live in the time of Lincoln when robust Senate debate was witnessed merely by the eyeballs in the Gallery or readers of limited-circulation newspapers. Social media spreads audio, video and text of Senate proceedings in real-time around the globe.  Consider, for example, the favorable reaction to Sen. Bernie Sanders' "The American People are Angry" speech railing against income inequality in 2010 that quickly went viral.

Consider also the role that popular outrage at the endorsement of such inhumane policies as self-deportation and "attrition through enforcement" played in marginalizing the GOP and the anti-immigration fringe in the last election.  Just as wide publication of these anti-immigration sentiments led growing numbers of Latino and minority voters to feel disrespected and to reflect their displeasure in the voting booth, xenophobic oratory by senators droning on for hours, while their views and videos are tweeted in real time, will cause public opinion to register support for comprehensive immigration reform (CIR).

Without a softening of the filibuster rules, we're likely to witness, as we already have seen, the resuscitation of previous small-bore CIR proposals that merely traded legalization with a path to citizenship and modest future flows of temporary workers for greater border and worksite enforcement.  While these measures are necessary in any CIR bill, they don't go nearly far enough to address America's 21st Century needs. As NAFSA, the Association of International Educators, recently noted:

In the acrimonious political debate about immigration reform, we lose our way by embracing a mistaken, zero-sum approach to permanent immigration. Proposals like H.R. 6429 [providing expedited green cards for students with STEM degrees but eliminating the Diversity Visa lottery -- a measure opposed by the President ] in this context appear guided by the fear of doing anything that increases the number of people who may immigrate to the United States. There is no reason to regard the current annual limit on the number of green cards as sacrosanct law.

At a time when Republicans are trying to cut out the Diversity Visa lottery and its 55,000 annual green cards, America faces the lowest birth rate on record and an aging population.  Cities like Detroit face bankruptcy unless infusions of new immigrants with their innovations and investments are welcomed through reforms of the immigration laws.  Skilled immigrants matter. So do "Immigration Entrepreneurs." But America's outmoded visa quotas, pulled from thin air rather than derived through empirical evidence, demoralize and dissuade intending immigrants.  Just as pressing, cross-border families deserve the most important of family values, the right to live together, free of heartless, quota-induced separations.

Republicans are searching the wilderness in three camps seeking a principled immigration policy.  One group remains full-throatedly opposed, like Mark Krikorian, dubbed an "anti-immigration scholar/kook" by Salon's Alex Pareene; another proposes miserly, piecemeal reforms like the Achieve Act, which would be a stricter DREAM Act with no path to citizenship (other than the second class variety); and a growing number favor CIR.

An improved set of filibuster reforms, while still protecting minority rights, might just peel off enough moderate Republicans to enact America-friendly CIR.  Go Harry Go!  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

[Blogger's note: 

Dear Readers: I promise that this post is indeed about immigration and the quadrennial election on Tuesday.   Please read to the end, beyond the meandering yet relevant introduction, to see the connection.]

Just over four years ago, David Foster Wallace, a gifted, troubled writer of wide acclaim, took his life. Fans of his writing, myself included, have marveled at his intelligence, wit and humanity.  Reading Foster Wallace is an exercise in mental gymnastics and focused attention that pays bountiful dividends. 

Thirty-seven years ago, another writer and deep thinker, Rod Serling, who gave us the Twilight Zone television series, lost his life to heart failure while likewise still in his prime.  Gene Roddenberry, futurist and creator of Star Trek, could have been describing Foster Wallace when he lauded Serling thusly: "No one could know Serling, or view or read his work, without recognizing his deep affection for humanity . . . and his determination to enlarge our horizons by giving us a better understanding of ourselves."

Serling's introduction to his show -- epitomizing the man himself -- is forever a part of American culture:  

You are about to enter another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land of imagination. Next stop, the Twilight Zone!

I thought about the parallels between the two writers this week when I stumbled on a Twitter post that led me to Foster Wallace's 2005 commencement address at Kenyon College. Here are excerpts from his talk about the real value of a college education, the ability to distinguish, depending on the degree of our committment to "attention" (Foster Wallace's take) or "imagination" (Serling's formulation), the autonomic from the conscious thoughts that come to mind while experiencing life's prosaic events. 

Foster Wallace illustrates his point as he describes a mundane, seemingly "boring" wait at a grocery checkout line, disrupted by the outburst of a frazzled mother yelling at her boisterous child:

[If] you're aware enough to give yourself a choice, you can choose to look differently at this fat, dead-eyed, over-made-up lady who just screamed at her kid in the checkout line. Maybe she's not usually like this. Maybe she's been up three straight nights holding the hand of a husband who is dying of bone cancer. Or maybe this very lady is the low-wage clerk at the motor vehicle department, who just yesterday helped your spouse resolve a horrific, infuriating, red-tape problem through some small act of bureaucratic kindness. . . .

[The] so-called real world will not discourage you from operating on your default settings, because the so-called real world of men and money and power hums merrily along in a pool of fear and anger and frustration and craving and worship of self. Our own present culture has harnessed these forces in ways that have yielded extraordinary wealth and comfort and personal freedom. The freedom all to be lords of our tiny skull-sized kingdoms, alone at the center of all creation. This kind of freedom has much to recommend it. But of course there are all different kinds of freedom, and the kind that is most precious you will not hear much talk about . . . in the great outside world of wanting and achieving. . . . The really important kind of freedom involves attention and awareness and discipline, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them over and over in myriad petty, unsexy ways every day.

That is real freedom. That is being educated, and understanding how to think. The alternative is unconsciousness, the default setting, the rat race, the constant gnawing sense of having had, and lost, some infinite thing. . . .

[If] you really learn how to pay attention, then you will know there are other options. It will actually be within your power to experience a crowded, hot, slow, consumer-hell type situation as not only meaningful, but sacred, on fire with the same force that made the stars: love, fellowship, the mystical oneness of all things deep down.

Just as serendipity triggered by social media led me to think of Foster Wallace, and then to Serling, it led me to my friend and immigration-law colleague, Paul Parsons, who this week offered an inspiring Facebook post to show "why being a U.S. immigration lawyer can be the greatest job in the world":

Last Friday we received our first two Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) approvals, and one of those clients sent this uplifting message today:

I just wanted to take another opportunity to thank you all for your help. I do not think I will ever be able to explain with words or emotions how immensely happy and grateful I am. For the first time in my life, I have a sense of belonging in the country that has raised me. My life has not been easy. I have had my fair shares of bumps and bruises along the way, but [life] is not supposed to be easy.

I know you all take pride in the work you do, because there are not many people that can say their job involves giving people the opportunity for a better future. You give hope to those who might have felt hopeless. You all can go home with the satisfaction of knowing you helped somebody, in many cases an entire family.

There are memories of things, events, and people that I will never forget, some good and some bad. Now I have one more good memory to add and you all will be part of it. Keep up the good work because there are many others like me waiting for the same opportunity.

. . . You are in the business of changing [lives] for the better, thank you again for making my life one of those. There is a saying that goes “Before you have a story you need to have a storm”. Well the storm has just past and the story is now only beginning.

As Americans vote for our leaders this week, I hope that we use both our attention and our imagination; that we remember our origin as a nation of immigrants; that we recall the wonders of immigrant innovation and the resulting benefits we enjoy; and that we call to mind our "power to experience a crowded, hot, slow, consumer-hell type situation as not only meaningful, but sacred, on fire with the same force that made the stars: love, fellowship, the mystical oneness of all things deep down."  

I hope as we enter the "other . . . dimension" of the voting booth, "a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind," that we are not entranced into reflexive thinking about "the so-called real world of men and money and power [which] hums merrily along in a pool of fear and anger and frustration and craving and worship of self." Although our "present culture has harnessed these forces in ways that have yielded extraordinary wealth and comfort and personal freedom," I hope we remember that elections trigger consequences, and that precious lives and futures depend on our choices.

I also hope we acknowledge that America needs people, and more people, like Paul Parson's client, as well as the remarkable contributors whose lives are poignantly revealed in Green Card Stories, just as much as we need dedicated public servants who help "resolve horrific, infuriating, red-tape problem[s] through some small act of bureaucratic kindness." 

In short, I hope we choose leaders who are likely to welcome rather than reject our nation's courageous and deserving immigrants.

Immigration has been dubbed the third rail of American politics, along with Social Security, Medicare, gun control, and a variety of other hot-button issues.  To me, it's more like a downed power line snaking low across the ground and electrocuting whomever fails to give it respectful attention. As the eyes of the nation turn to the first Presidential debate this Wednesday, will immigration supercharge the colloquy or -- as in years past -- be wholly ignored or disregarded as annoying static electricity?

Will Candidate Romney repeat his offensively tone-deaf line, "I'm running for office, for Pete's sake, I can't have illegals"? 

Will President Obama be asked to explain why he waited so long, all along claiming a lack of authority to use his executive power to ameliorate immigration hardships, and then reversed course in the campaign's end-game as a seemingly craven political ploy to curry Latino votes?

No one knows what Jim Lehrer, debate moderator emeritus, will ask in the first debate?  A petition is circulating that implores him to "include immigration reform in the domestic policy debate."

Certainly there are many menu items in the candidates' recent campaign pratfalls, the parties' respective platforms and their Congressional antics that offer delectable interrogatory opportunities, as I suggest in these posts ("The Immigration Week That Was," "The GOP Position: Immigration under Glass," "The Democrats' Immigration Position: Better But Blemished," and "Immigration Buffets and Buffeting in Congress"), and in my recent LXBN interview: 

While pundits handicap debate strategies, I offer a few more immigration questions for Mr. Lehrer to pose:

• Governor Romney, do you think the federal government should tax employers $10,000 for each H-1B worker they sponsor?
• President Obama, why should the American people believe your recent pledge to tackle immigration reform right away in your second term when you failed to honor the same commitment in your first term?
• Governor Romney, your immigration advisor, Kris Kobach, has supported laws which reportedly have caused economic harm to states and localities adopting them.  What immigration measures would you adopt to spur their economies?
• President Obama, your Secretary of Homeland Security has instructed Immigration and Customs Enforcement to treat LGBT couples as "family relationships" in removal proceedings, and your Justice Department no longer defends the Defense of Marriage Act.  Will you issue a regulation or executive order in your second term that authorizes the approval of same-sex, marriage-based immigrant visa petitions?
• Governor Romney, the Mexican Government has accepted an American labor union claim that Alabama's anti-immigrant law (HB 56) violates a U.S./Mexico trade agreement.  How will a Romney Administration respond?
• President Obama, why are 31-year-old and older DREAMers ineligible to file for DACA benefits?

Whatever the outcome of the debates and the November election, maybe all this electrifying talk about immigration is simply the wrong metaphor.  Americans seem far less troubled about immigration, according to a recent report from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press:

Immigration is . . . less of a focus in 2012. In [our] new survey, 41% view the issue of immigration as very important – the lowest of 12 issues tested – compared with 52% in August 2008.

Maybe the best debate questions should therefore be posed to each of them: 

• What specific actions will you take to cattle-prod Congress into enacting comprehensive immigration reform?
• Why won't you lead us, by solving, once and for all, our immigration challenges?

Congress has spread a table laden with reheated immigration delicacies, while still engaging in the usual posturing, pretend friendships and verbal fisticuffs. 

In a spirit of convivial bipartisanship, the House on September 13 passed by a vote of 402-3 legislation the Senate had approved in August, S.3245 ("A bill to extend by 3 years the authorization of the EB-5 Regional Center Program, the E-Verify Program, the Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious Worker Program, and the Conrad State 30 J-1 Visa Waiver Program"). Presumably, it will land on the President's signing desk before the September 30 sunset of the four programs.

Positioning has also begun in the House over competing Democratic and Republican versions of a STEM jobs act that would give green cards to highly-educated math, engineering, tech and science graduates of U.S. universities. The primary difference in approach is over whether to provide STEM green cards by eliminating the 55,000 Diversity Visa lottery (the GOP proposal). As explained by Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL), the Democrats want to vote on "a clean STEM increase . . . without doing damage to other parts of our legal immigration system." Given the GOP's House majority, expect the Republican version to be approved soon and sent to the Senate where it will face an uncertain fate. 

Meanwhile, Congressional hearings, already convened or soon to be held, serve as mediagenic stages for Republicans to take swipes at the President and his Homeland Security Department.  Rep. Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas, held a Sept. 12 hearing with a pre-ordained conclusion obvious from its title, "The Obama Administration's Abuse of Power" -- which included DACA among its other "abuses." On September 20, Rep. Peter King, Republican of New York, will debut "An Assessment of the Department and a Roadmap for its Future," a drill-down of a July 25 hearing ("Understanding the Homeland Threat Landscape").

After next week, Congress will likely go dark until after the November election as each party campaigns for hegemony in the executive and legislative branches.  A lame duck session will likely follow. Perhaps then winners and losers will at last put country before party on immigration and a host of other issues. Maybe legislators whose careers are ending through a loss at the ballot box or retirement -- with nothing to lose -- will grow spines. Perhaps the losing side will become more pliant as demographic changes cause them to wake up and smell a new brand of java.  It's happened before with such major lame-duck legislation as the Immigration Act of 1990, which passed on November 29, 1990.

Almost anything is better than stalemate, as I've previously suggested:

If there is to be an immigration meal, it must be piecemeal. If immigration supporters cannot have a multi-course feast at a single sitdown dinner, then tapas eaten seriatim will more than satisfy the hungry reformers' appetites.

The challenge will be to avoid modestly beneficial compromises that add to complexity and include something bad for everyone, and instead forge good deals that foster our bedrock immigration values of family unity, economic prosperity, and refuge for the persecuted.

If Mitt Romney wins, perhaps the best we can hope for is a Nixon-to-China moment on immigration reform, with the scales tipped in favor of employment-based visas and heavier-than-Obama enforcement (if that's even possible).  More immigration hope and change can be foreseen if President Obama carries the day, and the Dems maintain control of the Senate while making gains in the House. Perhaps anti-filibuster reforms early in the new Congressional term (as explained procedurally here and here) will be the secret door to comprehensive immigration reform.  

Wonks, stakeholders and, of course, citizens:  Stay tuned.

Labor Day, the quaintly traditional start of the Presidential election season, arrived this year with the memory still fresh of self-mortification Republican style -- the projection of Second Amendment rights squarely into their collective feet.

Rather than enjoying a customary post-convention bump in the polls, GOP candidate Mitt Romney received "easily the worst rating given to any of the last eight convention acceptance speeches." In a different kind of bump, a bio-pic many thought tended to humanize the candidate was bumped on broadcast TV by a frizzle-haired Clint Eastwood (apparently trying to reprise his role in the 1969 film musical, Paint Your Wagon), who has moved from talking to trees to ad libbing with a chair.

The convention, however, was not without its own lyrical high note.  Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, clearly repudiated the hate- and fear-filled immigration plank in the Republican platform (which, with double-bordered emphasis, urged self-deportation and ruled out any remedy for the unauthorized in our midst). In its place, she delivered a heartfelt tribute to the truest form of American exceptionalism, our tradition as a welcoming nation:

But the American ideal is indeed endangered today. There is no country, no not even a rising China, that can do more harm to us than we can do to ourselves if we fail to accomplish the tasks before us here at home.

More than at any other time in history — the ability to mobilize the creativity and ambition of human beings forms the foundation of greatness. We have always done that better than any country in the world. People have come here from all over because they believed in our creed — of opportunity and limitless horizons. They have come from the world’s most impoverished nations to make five dollars not fifty cents — and they have come from the world’s advanced societies as engineers and scientists to help fuel the knowledge based revolution in the Silicon Valley of California; the research triangle of North Carolina; in Austin, Texas; along Route 128 in Massachusetts – and across our country.

We must continue to welcome the world’s most ambitious people to be a part of us. In that way we stay perpetually young and optimistic and determined. We need immigration laws that protect our borders; meet our economic needs; and yet show that we are a compassionate people.

It's not that other convention speakers ignored immigration. Many waxed rhapsodic about their immigrant forebears who endured every form of privation so that their children might have a chance at freedom and prosperity in America.  As Sen. Mark Rubio offered, his father -- a Cuban émigré -- worked the bar at the back of the room so that his son "one day . . . could stand behind a podium in the front of a room."

Perhaps even more moving were the refugee sagas of George Romney, Mitt's father, and his father-in-law, both of whom fled revolution in Mexico for safety, succor and eventual success in America, as tearfully re-told by George's grandson, Craig. Other Republican speakers -- Nikki Haley, Mia Love, John Thune -- also regaled the crowd with their immigrant ancestors' sentimental journeys to America.  

While Marathon Man Paul Ryan's whopper of a speech did not touch on immigration, it could well have encompassed the subject in these stirring words:  

Our different faiths [Ryan's Catholicism and Romney's Mormonism] come together in the same moral creed. We believe that in every life there is goodness; for every person, there is hope. Each one of us was made for a reason, bearing the image and likeness of the Lord of Life.

We have responsibilities, one to another – we do not each face the world alone. And the greatest of all responsibilities, is that of the strong to protect the weak. The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves.

Apparently, however, given Ryan's decidedly anti-immigrant stance, for every undocumented person, hope begins only after self-deportation.  The GOP’s muddled message on immigration is not the way to win the Presidency or capture control of Congress.  

Republicans seemingly prefer their immigration under glass, viewed from the hermetically sealed distance of generations long extinct, observed through the prism of anodyne nostalgia.  With this profoundly dumb policy (read: insensate or, demographically speaking, just plain stupid, as you prefer), will they wake up after Election Day to consider their shared fate with the party's long extinct mascot -- no, not the Mastodon, but rather the Dodo Bird?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bloggers note:  Today's guest column is co-authored by two shining stars in the immigration firmament, Roxana Bacon and Esther Olavarria, who offer four innovative proposals for immigration reform conceived by their law students at the University of Miami Law School. The post is longer than usual but well worth your time.  

The melding of  insights from the immigration professors and the students brings to my mind the formula for  success highlighted in Brain Pickings, a marvelous site run by one of the web's best curator's, Maria Popova.  Quoting An Anatomy of Inspiration by Rosamund E. M. Harding, Popova -- a woman who gets immigration -- offers one fine formulation: 

Success depends on adequate knowledge: that is, it depends on sufficient knowledge of the special subject, and a variety of extraneous knowledge to produce new and original combinations of ideas.

Here, then, is a successful blending of insider knowledge and fresh perspectives "to produce new and original combinations of ideas" on immigration reform.]

Four Fresh and Seasoned Immigration Reform Proposals

By Roxana Bacon and Esther Olavarria

This spring, we co-taught an immigration class with a twist at the University of Miami Law School. Under the leadership of Dean Patricia White, UM has reinforced its commitment to human rights and migration law, with a deep bench of scholars--Becky Sharpless runs the clinic, David Abraham and Irwin Stotzky are tenured faculty, Ira Kurzban is an Adjunct, Professor Alejandro Portes, Visiting from Princeton, added his expertise in issues of assimilations and estrangement within the immigrant experience.

Dr. Joseph Chamie, the lead demographer for the United Nations for many years, introduced the course with a lively overview of the cool and irrefutable demographics that compel global immigration.   Professor Rafael Fernandez de Castro, chief of the International Studies Department of Mexico’s ITAM and advisor to President Calderon on immigration matters, joined a panel with Professor Abraham comparing German, Mexican and U.S. immigration laws and policy.

Dennis Burke, a former U.S. Attorney from Arizona, explained the real-time ins and outs of state and federal enforcement approaches, and we discussed the morality (or not) of immigration with the help of philosophy professor and ethicist, Dr. James Nickel.  As the cherry on top, the noted documentary filmmakers, Shari Robertson and Michael Camerini, (whose film “Well Founded Fear” has become the  bible for most immigration courses) showed 2 of their 12-part film  series, “How Democracy Works Now”.  By exploring the efforts to pass immigration reform between 2001 and 2008, the films take the viewer inside the legislative sausage factory, with its stew of conflicting ideologies, outsized egos, re-election fears, and occasional moments of idealism and caring.  The students learned more about partisan gridlock from them than a year in a graduate program could teach.  We used no textbooks, grounded the course in as much hard data as possible, and supplemented materials from daily headlines.  In short, the students were served a vibrant buffet of experts and information that we begged, borrowed or stole from our contacts and archives.

Our goal was to encourage a small group of 3Ls and LLMs who had already completed basic immigration course/clinic work to think outside the U.S. framework, studying natural and political influences on human migration globally before turning their analysis to U.S. immigration problems.  Their final required them to design a reform element within an identified larger area of U.S. immigration, explaining what they would reform, why, and how.  Each then presented their reform analysis and conclusions in a 90-minute class session, and then edited it based on class feedback as their final written paper.

We gave them ample latitude, assigning each team of 4 students one of 4 topics:

1. Southern Border Enforcement;

2. Labor-based Immigration;

3. Interior Enforcement;

4. Forced Migration.

We were worried that the class was too amorphous, that the 30,000’ level overview would be too lofty for presentations that had to work at the 3 foot level, that the panoply of experts and views and materials too diffuse for the students to manage in a 3 unit course.  Not to worry.  The students were spectacular.  Each Team presented a solid idea for reform that was innovative as well as doable.  Each team demonstrated a mature understanding of the gridlock plaguing Congress and the Administration on all matters dealing with immigration except enforcement, and each advanced novel strategies to pass their proposals.  Most important, each team walked away wiser, but not more cynical, about the possibility of reform, eager to take on the decades-long stalemate to achieve a fair and transparent system that works for the long term national good.  Their ideas are worth our attention.

Team 1 was assigned the general topic of Southern Border Enforcement.  Having heard the concerns of Dr. Fernandez de Castro that Mexico’s immigration law and policy are not in better shape than ours, albeit for different reasons, and recognizing the intense CBP and ICE emphasis on expedited return for those apprehended at the Border, the team made a strategic decision to focus on an issue that occurs solely within U.S. jurisdiction, but away from the immediacy of the Border.  The problem they chose is rape of undocumented migrants in U.S. drop houses. The magnitude of the problem is shocking; more than half of all women, including very young children, seeking to enter the U.S. without documents are raped. It is considered part of the price of migration, so prevalent that coyotes often require a contraception injection to avoid rape-based pregnancies.  The problem is growing; the NY Times article on May 28, 2012 documents the horror and the spread of these “houses of hell” as they move from the border to interior cities and subdivisions.

Team 1’s reform proposal is to establish a new protocol for rape victims or suspected rape victims when encountered in drop houses.  The team would require that drop house enforcement teams include a First Response Team, staffed by professionals, including therapists, who are experts in rape.  The FRT would follow the same protocol widely adopted by state and local police that treats rape victims as victims first, rather than participants in any wrongdoing, whether criminal or civil.   It is a brilliant reform idea.  No political party can disparage or dispute treating rape victims as violent crime victims without courting the wrath of women and men everywhere; indeed, being indifferent to these rapes is tantamount to being “for” drop house rape, and in turn that is tantamount to being “for” human trafficking, the genesis of the drop house problem in the first place. Further, rethinking and improving treatment of drop house rape victims conforms to the spirit of VAWA and T and U visas.  It also leverages existing state and local law enforcement experience and priorities so that little if any controversy or additional cost would be incurred.  Last, it complements existing social service resources and current thinking about the most effective treatment of domestic violence victims, i.e. rape of those in a dependent relationship.

The FRT would be required to handle all suspected rape victims in any drop house or other holding center for undocumented persons.  Currently there is no uniform protocol for treating such victims, and the outcome of any particular case is idiosyncratic, devoid of predictability or transparency.  Victims identified by medical and social service experts would be granted interim protection while their medical and emotional conditions stabilize.  That treatment would not be dependent upon their ability to identify their trafficker/smuggler, but rather on their physical and emotional conditions. They would not be incarcerated; if supervision were required, ATDs would be used.  Finally, the length and type of treatment would be set not by ICE but by the therapist who would be chosen from a rotating list.  Service on an FRT would be pro bono but would satisfy the mental/medical health professional’s continuing education requirements.  The team recommends using Arizona for beta testing, and having The O’Conner House, a centralized anti-trafficking initiative jointly established by the former Justice and Arizona State University, serve as coordinator.

Team 2 was assigned employment-based immigration issues as its general topic.  Again, the students demonstrated a deep understanding of the art of the possible; using Florida as the beta site, they crafted a new visa category, H-2C, geared to identifying undocumented persons in Florida who qualify to fill vacancies in the state’s hospitality industry.  The proposed H-2C category is unique in that it (a) targets the largest portion of Florida’s undocumented population to solve a chronic shortage of workers in the industry most vital to the state’s economy; (2) provides immediate benefit to Florida’s economy by bringing that group of undocumenteds into the state and federal tax system; and (3) allows Florida, a politically powerful state with a history of sympathy to some immigration issues, to assume a major positive role in advancing innovations in federal immigration law and policy.

Protection of U.S. workers is ensured not by the tedious labor certification process that has never been proven to be effective but by a payroll tax incentive for employers who hire a citizen or permanent resident rather than the H-2C migrant.  The incentive would also include a $1,000 annual tax credit for any U.S. worker who is retained for at least a year of uninterrupted employment.  These hard dollar incentives should be much more effective than the paper chase of labor certification, and the tax revenue “lost” would be recovered by the H-2C workers who join the tax system as regular tax-payers.  An eventual path to full resident status would be available to the H-2C workers through an expansion of the quotas for essential workers, a reform that could be expanded to include hospitality workers nationally if the Florida pilot program is successful.

The Team also outlined a strategy for passing the pilot program that is built on demonstrating the economic benefits of the H-2C category.  Each stake-holder—the industry’s employers, the unions, the associations that promote Florida’s tourism, the politicians in key “destination” cities, the immigrant communities’ advocates—would enjoy an immediate return on their H-2C investment.  More profit from more tourists is the obvious outcome of a reliable, legitimate work force in the hospitality industry, and more public tax income is the obvious by-product from booming tourism.

Team 3 chose a topic, interior enforcement, that is perhaps the most polarizing of the assignments.  It brings into clear focus the tensions created by a civil immigration law whose enforcement is modeled almost exclusively on criminal law—we arrest, we interrogate, we jail and we sentence, but we do so without any of the Constitutional protections applicable to the criminal counterparts.  We do “enforcement heavy” but “rights light”.   Team 3 did not seek to reverse any existing interior enforcement infrastructure or priorities, but rather to implement them as written.  Their program, SMART (“Securing Migrants & Americans Rights & Trust Act”) simply imposes the intent of Secure Communities, and of 287(g), by limiting local law enforcement participation in immigration to only those immigrants, whether documented or not, who have been convicted of the crimes that are the most dangerous to public safety.  The list is short, and does not turn on complex INA definitions (“agg felonies”, for instance), but rather on crimes that anyone would agree are egregious, and are the same priorities set by local law enforcement agencies for their populations generally.  But the biggest difference is that no local law enforcement would be involved in the immigration process until after a conviction.  The list of crimes that would invoke local law enforcement participation with ICE is:

a. National security crimes, including terrorism;

b. Homicide/Murder;

c. Aggravated sexual offenses;

d. Armed robbery/burglary;

e. Domestic violence that involves physical assault or battery or severe mental or emotional assault or battery, and both must result in injury.

Under 287 (g), or any state law authorizing non-federal participation in immigration enforcement, the state agencies’ role is restricted to enforcing only these serious crimes, and only post conviction.  The Team relied heavily on the fact that ICE’s fingerprint identification system (IDENT) is expanding at an annual rate of 20 million new prints, a growth that ICE has financed by increasing that part of its budget from $23.5M in 2003 to $690M in 2011.  Leveraging ICE’s own information is a smart use of SMART, and allows the local law enforcement agencies’ to concentrate on their own communities’ priorities while simultaneously supporting immigration enforcement.

Its creators repeatedly have informed Congress and the public that Secure Communities is intended to identify, apprehend and remove “the worst of the worst” immigrants.  SMART simply gives that goal more teeth, removes ambiguities that have proven difficult to surmount under the current SC memos, and allows local and federal law enforcement agencies to focus on their own lanes, with a defined area of immigration enforcement overlap.  Logically and structurally all the stakeholders should embrace it.  If not, it turns a spotlight on whatever reasons other than law enforcement or public fiscal efficiency are behind the continued use of local enforcement agencies to detain non-priority migrants.

Finally, under SMART, the default ICE position on detention would be electronic monitors or other ATDs.  Actual incarcerations would require ICE to “show cause” why physical detention is necessary for public safety or to avoid the migrant’s flight.  This hearing would be like a reverse bond hearing where the government would bear the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that no ATD will suffice to protect the public.  It would not replace the actual bond hearing (although some issues and facts would resurface) in that even once incarceration is shown to be necessary, the migrant could advance mitigating factors to argue for release on bond or other ATD.

Team 4 was charged with advocating a reform in the area of forced migration that took into account the global scope of the course’s materials.  They stepped up to the challenge with a novel take on demographics, global climate change, the scarcity of potable water and the hunger in the U.S. for capital.

Recommending the creation of an EB-6(a) category for water scarcity entrepreneurs, and an EB-6(b) category for watery scarcity researchers, the Team adopted a practical approach to an inevitability: much of the globe’s midsection will be subject to increasing drought, causing the movement of hundreds of millions of people to countries unable, and in some cases unwilling, to absorb them.   

In the most obvious scenarios, political stability in nations that have nuclear capacity (Pakistan, China, India) is threatened by water scarcity.

The problem is not just migration across national borders; 1,100 counties in the U.S. are already identified as suffering from or at risk for water scarcity, many in the Midwestern states that have traditionally been the U.S.’ prime agricultural region.  Developing answers to drought-related food and water scarcities is a critical goal of the U.S. now ($9.2 billion spent on water sector and sanitation initiatives outside the U.S., and another $41.8 million to U.N. programs addressing the same issues), with the problem only growing to tsunami size in the future.

Team 4 found that the U.S. is woefully unprepared to wage war for water.  The expertise needed to develop new water sources, better distribution systems, drought-resistant crops, more efficient storage, consumer conservation techniques, etc. depend on two fundamentals: capital and expertise.  Capital is obvious; it costs big money to redirect cities, consumers, industry and agriculture away from water-intensive habits.  Expertise is also obvious; the U.S. produces far fewer engineers and scientists than we need to address the water issues.  As 80% of the professional workforce associated with public wastewater and water retire over the next 10 years, we do not have enough replacements just to stay even.  Since the number of environmental jobs is expected to increase by over 50% in the next 10 years, the talent deficit grows ever bigger.   China and India both produce over 9 times more engineers each year than the U.S. (over a million to our 10,000), and that disparity increases each year even as competition for that talent becomes fiercer.

The EB-6(a) category would grant permanent residence to a discrete category of entrepreneurs in the field of water scarcity (desalination, purification, distribution, etc.) and/or food-related research (drought-resistant crops, waste-water crops, consumer conservation, etc.).  The entrepreneurs would themselves have to have graduate degrees in a STEM field directly related to their business proposal, and, in a flip on the current EB-5 program, could only be employed in their own start-up.  Direct involvement in their investment is required.

The investment would be much more modest; $100K initially, but with 5 employees, not related to the investor, in new jobs within 2 years.  Further, the business must have raised $500K in investment or generated $500K in gross revenue within 2 years.   To avoid the EB-5 problems, the science part of the investment proposal would be reviewed by scientists in the field, selected by the NSF, and if approved, would be sent to the Treasury Department to review the applicant and the proposal’s financial fitness.  DHS’ role would be limited to a review of the Act’s excludability factors.

The EB6(b) category is reserved for persons currently in the U.S., or who come in the future, to undertake and complete a graduate level degree in a STEM discipline at an accredited U.S. school who:

a. commit to work in the field of water/food scarcity (defined generously) for 3 years;

b. receive a letter from their employer(s) verifying a 3 year commitment (not enforceable as a private contract, but a statement of intent that can be investigated without cause);

c. if they do not have a letter, demonstration that they have assets sufficient to maintain themselves in the U.S. for up to one year while they look for qualifying employment;

d. become eligible to apply for permanent residence if employment in the field continues for 5 years.

Team 4 included extensive research documenting the statistics on U.S. engineering numbers, the growing need for more engineers and related skills in the field of water resources that only deepen our engineering talent deficit, and the need for rapid and prolific innovation in this area of the type best done in small start-ups.

Conclusion

We were delighted with the results of the Teams’ work, and hope some of you will be, also.  Each Team demonstrated an understanding of the intense anti-immigrant sentiment that is currently stopping reform, and they were wise in their selection of pieces of U.S. policy and law that could yield big dividends.  Most important, they recognized the almost impenetrable maze of political barriers to change, and in each case sought to build on existing law and policy, moving it ahead without burning bridges, but by building new, and natural, ones with partners whose  histories suggest they should be willing to sign on.  All 16 students (all 3Ls or LLMs) were smart, diligent and engaged, all remain interested in immigration law as a career, and not all have employment.  Upon request, we are happy to pass their names on to anyone who might be interested in following up with them, or with us, for each Team’s full submission.

[Roxana and Esther can be reached at: roxie.bacon@gmail.com]

The portents were plentiful, reaching back 30 years. Yet none but a clairvoyant could have predicted the aftermath on June 15, 1982 when the Supreme Court in Plyler v. Doe provided undocumented children with a guarantee of education through high school. Three decades to the day, a mixed-race president (whose Kenyan father was hounded out of the U.S. as a student by the immigration authorities for dating a white woman) would provide paperless kids with a tenuous legal status and the right to work.

It took a long time coming but the crystal ball became as vivid as a 3D film on an IMAX screen:

• Undaunted by ten years of Congressional failure to enact legislation, DREAMers became activists, forming United We Dream and countless other grass roots initiatives. 
• Over 90 law professors, scholarly colleagues in the immigration bar, and this blogger (here, here, here, here, here, here and there), provided the legal justification. 
• A Pulitzer winning journalist and my client, 31-year-old Jose Antonio Vargas, revealed his undocumented status in a New York Times Magazine article, formed Define American and toured the country speaking out on the pressing need for a solution to the immigration problems of his youthful compatriots who, like him, are citizens except on paper. 
• Vargas and fellow DREAMers -- just hours before the fateful change was announced -- appeared on the cover of Time Magazine and in this moving video:

Dismissing interruptions from an impudent, pull-up-the-gangplank journalist who immigrated from Ireland, and outcries from foes on the right (perhaps the most ironic from the author of the Bush torture memo assailing Obama's executive overreach), President Obama finally projected a modicum of courage. In a Rose Garden address, he announced that giving deferred action and work permits to DREAMers in the exercise of executive discretion is the "right thing to do."  

The task now falls to the Homeland Security Department's immigration components, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to review the anticipated flood of cases for deferred-action eligibility and issue work permits to a population of DREAMers estimated by the Pew Hispanic Center at 1.4 million.

Are they up to the job?  

The challenge will be daunting.  No new money has been appropriated. Existing agency personnel cannot possibly receive training and handle the workload without a funding mechanism.

Will the applicant tide overwhelm available resources? Can the foreseeable backlogs be avoided? How do those who want deferred action get it, given that DHS has consistently maintained that this act of prosecutorial discretion cannot be requested but must be conferred?

Here's what should be done:

• ICE and USCIS should publish regulations and OMB should approve them on an expedited basis.  Many informal pronouncements have been issued since Friday. The White House released a transcription of the President's Rose Garden announcement. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano published a memorandum to the heads of her component agencies, a press release and an FAQ. ICE issued an implementing memo. While helpful, these are no substitute for the publication of regulations that comply with the Administrative Procedure Act and a host of other federal laws requiring regulatory analyses and opportunities for public comment.  As Leland Beck urges in the Federal Regulations Advisor blog, "[w]ithout a regulation, the fragility of DHS’ policy position is clear – as a regulation may only be changed by another regulation, so a policy pronouncement may be changed by the whim of another policy pronouncement."  Given that presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney has declined to say whether a President Romney would reverse the DHS actions on DREAMers, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) should insist that ICE and USCIS engage in formal rulemaking but insure that the process is completed within the 60 days mandated by President Obama and Secretary Napalitano.  
• USCIS should use the EAD application process as the platform for deferred action requests.  USCIS already issues Employment Application Documents (EADs) to persons granted deferred action under the authority of 8 CFR § 274.12(c)(14). This regulation states that a foreign citizen "who has been granted deferred action, . . . [can receive an EAD] if the alien establishes an economic necessity for employment." The application is made on Form I-765 and requires a filing fee of $380 (although fee waivers are possible). Since Secretary Napolitano has announced the deferred-action criteria "to be considered" for persons in the defined DREAMer class, USCIS should treat the Secretary's directions as a presumptive grant of deferred action as to those who submit evidence to show economic hardship and satisfy the deferred-action standards (entry to the U.S. before age 16, no older than 30, presence here for five years, presence on 6-15-2012, background checks, and absence of disqualifying criminal history).  By using the EAD application form to adjudicate deferred-action requests of persons never in removal proceedings, USCIS would streamline the process and receive $380 per application to pay for the cost of adjudication. In addition, ICE and USCIS should agree that USCIS -- as the adjudication agency -- should make a preliminary decision on deferred action, subject to an internal ICE veto, before approving or denying an EAD.
• USCIS should deploy officers trained in adjustment of status to adjudicate the deferred action EAD applications.  USCIS has trained adjudicators on hand to determine the key eligibility criteria to qualify for DREAMer classification.  Comparable criteria, involving essentially the same analysis, apply under the green card application process known as adjustment of status for persons seeking forgiveness from ineligibility under Immigration and Nationality Act § 245(i). Given the unavailability or retrogression of most employment-based immigrant visa quotas that begins next month, these officers will likely have time on their hands quite soon.  Additional adjudicators from the USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS) -- once trained on DREAMer eligibility adjudications -- can be assigned to augment the adjustment adjudicators.  If needed, USCIS can also hire and train more adjudicators  -- assuming that $380 per EAD application is sufficient.  If the current EAD filing fee is insufficient to cover the cost of deferred action EAD adjudications -- a proposition I doubt given my insider sources with knowledge of filing-fee economics -- USCIS can make its case by publishing a proposed rule seeking to justify a higher fee.
• USCIS and ICE should apply the spirit of the new policy to deserving persons who fall outside its terms. There is no reason why the policy announced on Friday capped DREAMer eligibility below age 30 (other than that the age was reduced from less than 35 in the last failed Congressional effort).  Authority for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion and the grant of deferred action still exists and can appropriately apply to many others because -- as Secretary Napolitano stated in her memo to agency leaders: "Our Nation's immigration laws must be enforced in a strong and sensible manner. They are not designed to be blindly enforced without consideration given to the individual circumstances of each case. Nor are they designed to remove productive young people to countries where they may not have lived or even speak the language. Indeed, many of these young people have already contributed to our country in significant ways. Prosecutorial discretion, which is used in so many other areas, is especially justified here." 
• Newly legal DREAMers, their supporters and the American people must push President Obama and Congress to enact Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR). As Fareed Zakaria has demonstrated in his compelling CNN special report, America's success in the global economy hinges on CIR.  Like a balloon held under water, CIR must eventually emerge.  Possibly ephemeral deferred action status and evanescent work permits are insufficient.  They are revocable, and offer no path to citizenship and no route to full integration into American society.  The undocumented parents of citizens and DREAMers alike also need to be allowed out of the shadows.  We must reform a system that New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg calls "national suicide." 

As Martin Luther King, Jr., the quintessential Dreamer, reminds us, "the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice."  Let's make sure our leaders are forced to shorten the arc and bend it quickly to reach its destination, equal justice under law.

"How old would you be if you didn't know how old you are?" ~ Satchel Paige

One of the benefits of having played in the immigration sandbox for a long time is to see old friends return. A fondly remembered playmate -- who left in 1995 and returned in 2010 -- is a good ol' cuss named ACUS -- the Administrative Conference of the United States. Not to be confused with ACORN, ACUS (at a glance or in historical context) left the sandbox because it became homeless (Congress cut off its allowance).  

Back in the day, ACUS was a great friend to advocates of more functional immigration laws.  It adopted Recommendation 89-9 (Processing and Review of Visa Denials) at the urging of a tireless law professor, James Nafziger, who has long railed against the scourge of consular nonreviewability, or as many prefer, consular absolutism, an injury that can still hurt years after a visa refusal.  Apparently to save its funding ACUS claimed in 1995 that it had indeed made progress on consular review -- a fib I forgive, given ACUS's latest activity (described later in this post):

89-9 Processing and Review of Visa Denials Partially implemented. Recommends that the Department of State implement changes in its procedures for review of visa applications at United States consulates abroad. The recommended changes include permitting the assistance of attorneys, increased explanation of the basis for denials, making public advisory opinions of the Visa Office, and studying the development of an administrative appeals process for visa denials. The Recommendation was transmitted to the Secretary of State and to relevant Congressional committees. In 1990, the ABA adopted a resolution supporting most elements of this recommendation [p. 56]. In 1990, the Legal Adviser of the State Department indicated, in a letter to the Chairman, that the Department was considering implementing specified parts of the Recommendation but would likely not initiate a study of the implementation of administrative appeals. In 1992, H.R. 5173 was introduced to establish a Board of Visa Appeals in the State Department. In 1993, the State Department issued a cable emphasizing the need to give explanations of the reasons for visa denials, and providing additional information in cases where an advisory opinion is being sought. (Italics in original.)

(In addition to the ACUS and ABA proposals for consular review, AILA's Board of Governors adopted a resolution urging consular review based on an article I co-authored with Mitchell Tilner: “A Proposal for Legislation Establishing a System of Review of Visa Refusals in Selected Cases,” Interpreter Releases, October 7, 1988.) Defiantly, however, the State Department remains as intransigent as ever in opposing any system for review of visa refusals (indeed, State even eliminated the Board of Appellate Review which protected U.S. citizens who challenged governmental claims that they'd expatriated).  Congress never established a Board of Visa Appeals. Attorneys still are barred from most consular interviews and advisory opinions are not published. 

While that battle is in pause mode, ACUS is proposing a slew of administrative reforms for consideration on June 16 that would apply generally to all Executive Branch agencies. The most important for immigration aficionados would make the immigration system more just and efficient.  The ACUS proposal offers a cornucopia of improvements (37 in all) to the immigration courts and the removal process which would help take the 800 lb. kangaroo out of the court room. The recommendations are backed up by a 133-page report by Law Professor Lenni Benson (I'm proud to say she was my former partner at Bryan Cave [see her here as she explains CIR's promise and peril in this 9-minute video]) and Russell Wheeler, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution.

If ACUS approves the recommendation to fix the immigration removal system, that will surely change the national dialogue.  Although the reincarnated ACUS hasn't yet tackled comprehensive immigration reform, this public-private partnership will deflate the arguments of immigration hardliners who oppose CRI and just hate it that border crossings are down. By showing how the system can be made more efficient, less costly and more just -- meaning that people who really ought not be here are removed quickly and cheaply, while those with equity are allowed to reclaim their quest for the American Dream -- ACUS will help force the opponents of reform to face the inevitable need to fix the two other legs of the CRI stool (the undocumented who are here and future flows of those whom we need). 

Among the other ACUS proposals for consideration on June 16 is one that likewise addresses immigration dysfunctionality.  As the Federal Regulations Advisor Blog describes it, the proposal would "Improv[e] Coordination of Related Agency Responsibilities:

The Committee on Collaborative Governance makes recommendations on the perceived problem of overlapping and fragmented procedures associated with assigning multiple agencies similar or related functions, or dividing authority among agencies. In reviewing the report by Jody Freeman (Harvard) and Jim Rossi (Florida State), agencies will need first to determine their jurisdiction, an issue of large concern by itself.

The problem of endemic dysfunctionality in the perpetual brouhaha that masquerades as interagency dialogue in the immigration space, however, is not one of mere perception. To be sure, sometimes the separation of functions can serve as a helpful system of checks and balances as for example when Congress wisely separated immigration enforcement from benefits adjudication in enacting the Homeland Security Act of 2002. But mostly the problems of mission creep and mission avoidance remain.  Even more troubling to stakeholders is the despicable reality that immigration officials in one agency rarely learn let alone understand or master the overlapping regulations of another agency in what ACUS refers to as "shared regulatory space."

So I'm delighted that ACUS is back in the immigration sandbox.  Although the cynics might say that ACUS builds castles in the sand, I'm with many American forebears who would urge ACUS to continue striving.  These, I fancy, would include the age-defiant Satchel Paige in the quote above and Henry David Thoreau, whom (for the sake of maintaining my sandbox metaphor) I paraphrase thusly: "If you have built castles in the [sand], your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them."

Welcome back ACUS. Let's Quixote-like (as opposed to coyote-like) build CIR castles with solid foundations and tilt at more dysfunctional windmills in the immigration sandbox together!

I worry a lot about the future facing America's young adults.  Saddled with Dickensian levels of college and grad-school debt, largely unable to find opportunities in their preferred careers, our young fear that they'll be relegated to work in low-paid, dead-end jobs. They and their parents are rightly concerned that the middle class is disappearing, the gulf between the ultra-rich and the poor is growing, and citizens coming of age today may never achieve the American Dream of economic progress.

The country's political, labor and business leaders seem to think the solution lies in restoring our nation's former prominence in manufacturing:

At the Second Annual Conference on the Renaissance of American Manufacturing held in Washington on March 27, speakers from the Obama administration, the Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum presidential campaigns, Republican and Democratic senators, CEOs, and representatives from labor, think tanks and trade associations all agreed: the renewal of American manufacturing should be a top economic priority.

Richard A. McCormack, "Is Momentum Building For Adopting A New Manufacturing Policy Agenda, Or Is The Interest Due Only To The Upcoming Election?" Manufacturing & Technology News, Mar. 30, 2012.

I'm not persuaded.  Don't get me wrong, this native Detroiter was glad when the Obama Administration stepped in to save the U.S. auto industry. Despite the protests of a certain "Son of Detroit," the de facto GOP nominee for president, who would have "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt," and now derides the auto bailout as "crony capitalism," maintaining a base level of domestic manufacturing is an important element of our national security.

But it's not the key to our economic salvation.  Slate's Matthew Yglesias makes the point well in "Forget the Factories [-] Obama’s foolish obsession with manufacturing jobs will make America poorer":

[If] you look at America’s metropolitan areas, it’s clear that manufacturing-oriented places are relatively poor. The wealthy clusters in the United States are built around things like software, biotechnology and medical devices, higher education, finance, and business services. Places like California, Minneapolis, Seattle, and the Northeast corridor are far richer than the factory-oriented Rust Belt and Southeast.

Rather than overemphasize the rebuilding of its industrial base, America should play to its true strengths. We are the "crazy ones" who "think different", the dreamers (and DREAMers), the visionaries and innovative problem-solvers. Although we've fallen behind in the STEM fields, and must therefore refocus our emphasis on math and the sciences, we are blessed as a nation with an abundance of creative savants who color outside the lines. Our technology dazzles and transforms the world as Hollywood entertains it.

These strengths illustrate the fundamental economic principle of comparative advantage -- do only what you do best and let others do their own best thing. It works domestically, for example, when companies make the "buy or build" decision and choose to focus on core competencies.  It would work as well in the global economy if trade were truly free and fair, protectionism were eliminated, and guarantees of minimum labor standards and trade dislocation payments were universally achieved.

If America played to its strengths, our leaders would promote basic research and development, and generally decline to let government pick winners and losers. They would recognize that service industries today account for almost three-fourths of all American jobs, and that the upside potential for better-paying jobs lies more in services than in manufacturing.

J. Bradford Jensen, professor of economics and international business at Georgetown University, makes the case for increased services trade convincingly in his 2011 book, Global Trade in Services: Fear, Facts, and Offshoring, and in the video below:

Similarly, The New York Times' Catherine Rampell reported last week:

In the United States, services increasingly dominate the economy. Employment in this sector has risen steadily since the 1960s, with 70 percent of Americans now working in service industries. And America already exports more services than any other country in the world, even more than the next two competitors combined. In 2011, that amounted to $612 billion exported in services, up 10.1 percent from 2009, and up 136 percent since 1991.

Still, there is great untapped potential for more, since all of these exports are being sold from a tiny share of all the American companies that could participate in the global marketplace.

"Some Urge U.S. to Focus on Selling Its Skills Overseas," April 10, 2012.

What's stopping us from exporting more services (a market likely to add another $800 billion to our GDP)?  

Agricultural subsidies are partly to blame. They are a significant obstacle that discourages developing countries from talking about eliminating trade-in-services barriers. Ag subsidies also create "push" factors, as when many Mexican corn farmers, unable to compete with U.S. agribusiness, abandoned their fields and entered America illegally after Mexico, the U.S. and Canada enacted the North American Free Trade Agreement. As Ron Nixon of The New York Times notes, were we at least to cap artificial farm price supports, we could save billions.

Steel protectionism is another culprit.  Our would-be trading partners have seen America (the leading proponent of free trade) as behaving hypocritically when President George W. Bush imposed tariffs on imported steel in 2002 and again when Congress enacted and President Obama signed the American Recovery and Relief Act in 2009 (with its "Buy American" requirements to purchase iron, steel, and manufactured goods for use in public construction and public works projects).

Global trade in steel and farm products are important to be sure.  Lowering these trade barriers globally or regionally (while providing trade adjustment assistance and retraining for displaced workers) would be beneficial.  It would allow American consumers to purchase more goods at lower cost. The real promise of American prosperity lies, however, not so much in eliminating barriers to trading tangible commodities, but rather in exploiting our lead in the international trade for services.

The primary impediments to the negotiation of liberalized trade-in-services treaties are found among the miserly visa quotas and contrived labor-market-testing provisions codified in the Immigration and Nationality Act, as even more strictly interpreted by anti-free-trade apparatchiks in the executive branch.  

Other pernicious immigration laws likewise limit American export of services. There are the U.S.-worker preferences of the 2009 Economic Recovery Act (which I assailed at the time as "Protectionist Turducken, Immigration Style").  There is also the 2010 law imposing extortionate and exorbitant filing fees, to be paid mostly by Indian companies, to fund the sovereign function of border security -- imposts that the Indian government is now challenging as illegal trade barriers in its complaint against the U.S. in the World Trade Organization.

The Times' Catherine Rampell in sleuthing out the cause for global restraints on trade in services concludes her article by identifying the prime culprit:

Perhaps the most basic constraint is not abroad but here in the United States, which has relatively tight immigration controls. Services often require workers to travel freely across borders. Asking India to allow American consultants to enter and leave Delhi at will is difficult if the United States cannot — or, more accurately, will not — reciprocate. Economists acknowledge concerns about freer trade displacing some American workers. But they say the United States would nonetheless have a net gain in jobs if borders everywhere were more open.

“We need to have a visa policy that allows businesses to operate efficiently at home and abroad, and that allows all professionals to be able to move back and forth between corporate offices,” said Jeffrey J. Schott, a former trade negotiator and now senior fellow at the Peterson Institute. “If we don’t, why would anyone else?”

Perversely, U.S. immigration policies are not just bars to global services trade.  They also impair our ability to compete successfully in the world's marketplace for services.  Peter Whoriskey of the Washington Post explains:

If demography is destiny, the U.S. economy may be in the midst of a decades-long slowdown. The U.S. labor force is growing at about half the rate it was 20 years ago; according to recent projections by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, it will continue to expand at a slightly lower pace through 2020. . . .

“In the end, what an economy is depends upon how many bodies you have,” said Anthony Carnevale, an economist and director of the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.

Carnevale added that if the diagnosis for what ails the economy is the size and quality of the workforce, that may be good news, at least compared to theory that the biggest problem is foreign competition. “To the extent this is a domestic demographic problem, it’s more in our control,” he said. “We can’t blame the Chinese for the quality and quantity of our domestic labor force.”

Indeed, America's domestic demographic problem is in our control.

The remedy will not be found, however, by rebuilding our manufacturing base to its former glory, or, as some have recently done, by warring with women on family planning decisions.

The U.S. will only correct its trade imbalances, redouble the nation's sizable lead in the global trade for services, and create high-paying U.S. jobs for present and future generations, by modernizing our creaky, crotchety immigration laws.   

[Blogger's note: This article is reprinted with permission from the February 22, 2012 edition of The New York Law Journal.  ©2010 ALM Properties Inc. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. The authors thank the Journal for permission to reprint this article.]  

No More Waiting on Legal Immigration

By Angelo A. Paparelli and Ted J. Chiappari 

President Barack Obama has professed a new strategy of impatience. With the economy still in malaise, and the unemployment outlook only a tad improved, the White House has begun to implement a reelection gambit entitled, "We Can’t Wait." The waiting is not for Godot, but rather for a moribund Congress to pass his largely ignored proposal, the American Jobs Act:

Without a doubt, the most urgent challenge that we face right now is getting our economy to grow faster and to create more jobs…. we can’t wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job. Where they won’t act, I will.

—President Obama, October 24, 2011.

In an effort to jumpstart the economy, the approach taps his exclusive authority over federal departments to craft executive orders. Hoping to avoid the fate of Jimmy Carter, a one-term Democrat who also faced malaise, Mr. Obama’s first foray into economy-goosing executive orders has involved housing, education and veterans’ affairs. His more recent jobs-focused directives have begun (albeit too timidly and slowly in the authors’ view) to address administrative reforms to America’s system of legal immigration.

 As this article will show, an assertive President Obama, with his eyes transfixed on the reelection prize, can do much more to improve our immigration regulations and agency practices, which the President oversees through the Departments of Homeland Security, State, Justice and Labor. With presidential orders on legal immigration, he can recharge the economy in countless ways while protecting American jobs and creating hundreds of thousands of new ones.

Continue Reading

[Blogger's note:  This week’s guest blog is by Steve Yale-Loehr, a good friend who teaches immigration law at Cornell Law School and co-authors the leading U.S. immigration treatise. Steve has just finished co-editing Green Card Stories, a book that features dramatic narratives of 50 recent U.S. immigrants—each with permanent residence or citizenship—in compelling essays by nationally recognized journalist Saundra Amrhein and exquisite portraits by award-winning documentary photographer Ariana Lindquist.

Steve addresses pragmatic, legal and moral questions raised by GOP proposals that would drop the option of pursuing higher education and instead require DREAM Act youth to serve in the military as the only way to attain legal status. 

Reading Steve's post, I am reminded of the despicable term, "cannon fodder," and the hypocrisy of sending "expendable" youth into harm's way, where many lives will likely be cut short, wasted in wars started by their elders.

Shakespeare penned it best when he had the cynical Falstaff say in Henry IV, Part I:  "Food for powder, food for powder; they’ll fill a pit, as well as better."

A military-only DREAM Act -- more aptly dubbed the NIGHTMARE Act -- sends a terrible message.  Congress should keep the education-option available to innocent men and women (brought here by their families) who by any definition -- other than in law -- are Americans all.

Blogger's postscript to his note: I must apologize for having used the term "cannon fodder" and suggesting that some might view soldiers recruited through a military-only version of the DREAM Act as "expendable."  I now understand and regret that reasonable readers might view this as a criticism of the U.S. military. My intent was to criticize politicians not our armed services.]

DREAM or NIGHTMARE?: 

Why Congress Should Reject a Military-Only Version of the DREAM Act

By Steve Yale-Loehr

First proposed in 2001 by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Richard Durbin (D-IL), the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act would allow certain undocumented noncitizens a chance to legalize their status by going to college or serving in the military. Since then it has been introduced regularly both as a stand-alone bill and as part of comprehensive immigration reform bills, drawing bipartisan support each time in both the House and Senate. The closest it has come to enactment was in 2010, when it passed the House but failed to get through the Senate.

Congress has watered down the DREAM Act over the last decade.The original 2001 version would have granted permanent resident status (green cards) to any undocumented child who had been in the United States for at least five years, as long as they had good moral character and were attending a college or university.

By contrast, the Senate’s 2011 version of the bill would require individuals to have entered the United States before they were 15; have graduated from a U.S. high school or received a GED from a U.S. institution;be under 35 on the date of enactment; and have lived in the United States for at least five years. Prior versions of the bill did not include an age cap. Similarly, the current version of the bill would require beneficiaries to stay in conditional resident status for six years before they could get permanent green cards. Early versions of the DREAM Act would have immediately granted green cards to individuals who met the bill's requirements.

The current version would also make applicants subject to more grounds of inadmissibility, deportability, and other restrictions. Some want to water down the DREAM Act even more.Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich say they would support a DREAM Act — but only for young immigrants who join the military. Representative David Rivera (R-FL) has introduced a bill along similar lines.

Problems with a military-only DREAM Act range from the practical to the philosophical. For example, Representative Rivera’s bill would require people to enlist within nine months; otherwise they would lose their eligibility under the bill. The bill fails to realize, however, that people can’t start the enlistment process until they are legal and have a social security number. It can take longer than nine months to complete the enlistment process, and the military services have annual quotas that get filled quickly when the economy is bad, forcing people into the next fiscal year.

In addition, some potential enlistees may fail to qualify for medical reasons. Suppose someone gets temporary status under the Rivera bill, tries to enlist, and turns out to be colorblind. Do we tell them, "Sorry, we are deporting you because you are colorblind. No refund of the immigration fees you paid to start the DREAM Act process"?

The call for a military-only DREAM Act also poses moral problems. It effectively tells undocumented noncitizens that they are only useful for war, not for improving our economy through their hard work or inspiring the next generation by teaching in our schools. Those professions are just as noble as fighting for our country. As a new book, Green Card Stories, points out, people who legalize their status help this country in a variety of important ways.

Proponents of a military-only DREAM Act also forget the economic benefits of enacting a broader bill. For example, A 2010 study by the UCLA North American Integration and Development Center estimates that the total earnings of DREAM Act beneficiaries over the course of their working lives would be between $1.4 trillion and $3.6 trillion. Similarly, a 2008 study from Arizona State University found that an individual with a bachelor’s degree earns approximately $750,000 more over the course of his or her lifetime than an individual with only a high-school diploma. In these tough economic times, we need the earnings of everyone in this country as much as we need their military service.

Langston Hughes once wrote:

What happens to a dream deferred?

Does it dry up like a raisin in the sun? 


Or fester like a sore and then run?

Does it stink like rotten meat?

Or crust and sugar over, like a syrupy sweet?

Maybe it just sags like a heavy load.

Or does it explode?”

Politicians should watch out. Trying to dilute the DREAM Act may backfire on them and cause DREAMers to explode in widespread demonstrations and cries of outrage, if necessary to enact a true DREAM Act.

President Obama had a macho moment this week when he suggested, rhetorically, a poll of ghosts. "Ask Osama Bin Laden" and the "22 out of 30 top al-Qaeda leaders who've been taken off the field," he proposed, "whether I engage in appeasement."  The storied bugaboo of foreign-policy appeasement, best typified by the flaccidity of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in the face of Nazi aggression, was the GOP charge that the President debunked so handily.

Would that he were so forceful against Republicans on the immigration front, where a foreign policy challenge morphs into a domestic concern, one that starts at both the water's edge and the nation's earthly boundary.  This time his use of drones and boots on the ground to fortify and defend America's borders successfully has produced nothing but a failed effort at GOP appeasement. 

The President probably won't ask the 80 or so U.S. citizens held illegally from a day to four years in just two immigration detention centers if he engages in appeasement.  He'd probably also decline to float a survey of the statisticians who count border crossings, for they would say that illegal inbound migration is at its lowest in over four decades. The rhetorical flourish this time won't work because he knows these responders would surely say "yes" to the appeasement charge. No poll is necessary because he already knows the answer. He told us so last summer: "Maybe [the Republicans will] need a moat. (Laughter.) Maybe they want alligators in the moat. (Laughter.) They’ll never be satisfied. And I understand that. That’s politics."

Presidential swagger would be more impressive if he used his clout to circumvent GOP-erected gridlock in Congress.  Imagine if he decided to eschew drones and troops and went low tech.  Imagine if he looked back among the weapons of his and every American boy's childhood and pulled out his lowly pea shooter.  Rather than appease, he could shoot peas -- fresh green orbs of power in the form of executive orders that he alone propels from the White House. 

No more appeasement but fusillades of executive (made-to-) order peas that would sprout the jobs he so desperately needs created pronto to save his presidency. 

Some might argue that he's already begun the effort by authorizing ICE and USCIS to exercise prosecutorial discretion (PD) more frequently in favor of leniency for low level immigration violators. But that effort has yet to fire off enough salvos to hit the target. It would be better to accelerate PD reviews, expand them to include all the unauthorized among us rather than the current triage of only 300,000 deportation cases, begun as a timid six-week pilot project in Denver.  Moreover, he should order the agencies to grant the formal status of "deferred action" (which includes the right to a work permit) rather than just PD (which merely prolongs the individual's agony by preventing them from progressing in their lives and pursuits, but only allowing them to wait to the unknown day when the grim deporter returns for them).

He could also aim his shots at the legal immigration system.  Nothing but his own policy of GOP immigration-appeasement prevents him.  He seems to understand the concept, as his "We Can't Wait" campaign addresses housing, student loans, energy efficiency and health care. There are gobs of jobs he could create if he turned his sights to tweaking the employment-based immigration laws, as I suggest in this post, "Executive Craftsmanship: Job Creation through Existing Immigration Laws," and video:

Why is President Obama so un-macho on immigration?  Alas, maybe he's just too wim-pea.

The Occupy Wall Street movement began with a poster, a word cloud, a QR Code and three lines of text:

#OCCUPYWALLSTREET

September 17th. Bring tent.

www.occupywallst.org. 

Steve Jobs launched his massively successful "Think Different" rebranding campaign for Apple in 1997 with a TV commercial and this script:

Here's to the Crazy Ones. The misfits. The rebels. The trouble-makers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules, and they have no respect for the status-quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify, or vilify them. About the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world...are the ones who do!

Alejandro Mayorkas, the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), recently announced with the flourish of a press release an ingenious "Think Different" initiative that may well transform this vexed and vexing immigration agency.  His announcement heralded the new Entrepreneurs in Residence Program (EIR), an experiment that will tap the wisdom and experience of seasoned startup veterans to inject fresh air and fresh insights into USCIS.

The EIR, as the press release explained, "will utilize industry expertise to strengthen USCIS policies and practices" affecting foreign "investors, entrepreneurs and workers with specialized skills, knowledge, or abilities." As Director Mayorkas explained, the "initiative creates additional opportunities for USCIS to gain insights in areas critical to economic growth . . .  [with the] introduction of expert views from the private and public sector [which] will help [USCIS] to ensure that our policies and processes fully realize the immigration law's potential to create and protect American jobs."  A two-stage effort, the EIR begins as a "series of informational summits with industry leaders to gather high-level strategic input" and then the heavy lifting follows with the assembly of a "tactical team comprised of entrepreneurs and experts, working with USCIS personnel, to design and implement effective solutions."

The EIR occupation of USCIS cannot come a millisecond too soon.  Just like a Dream Act kid who keeps getting blamed for the mistakes of her undocumented parents, USCIS, only nine years old, keeps receiving many of the same brickbats that bombarded its ancestor, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).  Unlike the DREAMers, however, USCIS has magnified INS's peccadilloes and committed new more egregious ones of its own.  Ted Chiappari and I describe the venial and mortal sins of USCIS at length in our article, published last week in the New York Law Journal, "Intubation and Incubation Two Remedies for an Ailing Immigration Agency" (link courtesy of ALM Enterprises).

Whether intended or inadvertent, EIR is a deft stratagem, even more artful than Clintonesque triangulating.  Cleverness taken to the fourth degree, EIR, captured in one word, is all about quadrangulation.  If it is to succeed, EIR must task its occupiers to infiltrate and attack from within the four-sided challenge that is USCIS today: (1) the immigration stakeholder community and the USCIS Ombudsman clamoring for more user-friendly enhancements to fusty USCIS interpretations of work-visa eligibility, (2) the ever-campaigning President saying "we can't wait" for the enactment of job-creating legislation, (3) Socialism-incliningRepublicans in Congress, led by GOP commissars Smith and Grassley, who seem, counter-intuitively, to embrace immigration regulation more than job creation, and (4) the agency's anti-business, unionized adjudicators who prefer chaos theory over customer service.

Who will Director Mayorkas tap as the EIR's movers and shakers to prod, awaken, reeducate and redirect USCIS? As noted in the NYLJ  "Intubation/Incubation" article, ideally they should be "industry leaders" with just the right background:

[Entrepreneurs who] harbor a strong interest in an expansive reading of the employment-based immigration laws. Their likely interpretation would view the immigration laws as offering many opportunities to grow startup and established businesses in the U.S. by harnessing the innovations and skills of bright, energized and talented non-citizens. Prospective EIR participants with such interests and perspectives probably will have already used and intend to use again the employment-based immigration laws to secure USCIS's permission to hire foreign workers.

As the EIR experiment in intramural administrative sport begins, an October 29-30 Wall Street Journal editorial ("The Other Jobs Crisis") captured spot-on the immigration dysfunctions that beset America today. Migrant farm workers flee Alabama and Georgia, two states with nativist laws that cause produce to rot in the field. With few Americans willing to descend to back-breaking stoop labor, "incarcerated criminals" are dragooned to "work the fields." Republicans in Congress, the supposed "champion[s of] deregulation and business-led growth" focus on "immigration control" as "one of their main passions," while continuing "to ignore the economic costs" and the need "to overhaul the guest worker program to widen avenues for legal immigration."  Meantime, ironically on www.WSJ.com, GOP Presidential front-runner and pizza-chain turnaround artist, Herman Cain, callously rebukes the Occupy Wall St. protestors: "If you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself! ... It is not a person's fault if they succeeded, it is a person's fault if they failed."

Like his Chief of Staff, Herman Cain is just blowing smoke.  He should know that not everyone can find a job in a nation with a 9.1% unemployment rate (but if Cain is truly "counter-factual" on the cause of U.S. joblessness, he is manifestly unfit for the presidency).  America desperately needs more job creators, the salutary byproducts of a functioning, business-friendly immigration system.  Since Congress will not act, and the President can't wait, my hope is that Director Mayorkas will install "demented" entrepreneurial occupiers of USCIS, "Crazy Ones" who "are crazy enough to think they can change" America by occupying his benighted agency.  

A recent televised debate revealed an immigration fault line within the GOP. Texas Governor Rick Perry's many challengers for the Republican presidential nomination railed against his decision to extend in-state tuition rates to undocumented college students, brought to the U.S. as children, who graduate from the Lone Star State's high schools. His initial reply:

“If you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than they've been brought there by no fault of their own, I don't think you have a heart.”

The line stung many conservative "activists [who] hear ‘you have no heart’ as a dog whistle for ‘you people are racist,’ which obviously enrages them," according to Steven Duffield, a former staffer to Sen. John Kyl who oversaw the writing of the 2008 Republican platform.  Within days Perry, while still defending the Texas tuition law, apologized:  “I was probably a bit over-passionate by using that word and it was inappropriate.”

The relevant questions are not really whether conservatives lack the same missing anatomical feature as the Tin Man in the Wizard of Oz or whether racism drives opposition to college tuition support for children brought to America illegally by their parents.  Rather, the fundamental issue is whether a legitimate principle animates the opposition. 

One voice reliably opposed to immigration, Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), which claims to espouse "low-immigration, pro-immigrant policies," suggests that we need to get beyond "weepy sentimentality" and instead focus on hard-headed realism:  

The case of in-state tuition for illegal aliens who arrived here as children is a case in point. These are clearly the most sympathetic illegal immigrants, which is why advocates have been exploiting their stories in the quest for a general amnesty.

Our hearts tell us to make accommodation for children who were brought here illegally at a very young age and who know no other country (in-state tuition specifically is just a stalking horse for amnesty for these young people in the form of the so-called DREAM Act). That is a noble and proper sentiment.

But our heads tell us that all amnesties reward lawbreaking and serve to attract more illegal immigration. It is for this reason that amnesties must be avoided and why the push for "comprehensive immigration reform" has failed repeatedly, and will continue to fail.

Curiously, however, Krikorian and others of like mind did not repeat that "all amnesties reward lawbreaking," when the Internal Revenue Service decided this month to waive interest, penalties and audit exposure, and accept only one-tenth of the employment taxes otherwise owed by employers who participate in its "Voluntary Settlement Classification Program." Known as the VSCP, the program is an amnesty for businesses that may have wilfully treated employees as independent contractors, thereby avoiding Social Security contributions and taxes.  Nor did Krikorkian and his ilk object when the IRS twice granted wealthy tax cheats amnesty in the form of immunity from civil and criminal prosecution who voluntarily revealed the existence of untaxed off-shore bank accounts and paid back taxes.

When scofflaws flout their tax obligations yet are thrice forgiven by the IRS, Krikorian ought to be complaining to high heaven that federal coffers are unjustly deprived of needed revenue and that these tax amnesties "serve to attract more illegal" behavior.  His CIS colleague, Steven Camarota, has certainly shown no reluctance to allege (no matter how inaccurately) that undocumented immigrants hurt law-abiding taxpayers, but is likewise reticent when IRS announces serial amnesties that benefit businesses and the wealthy and make fools of law-abiding Americans who comply with the tax laws.

On a scale of culpability, tax cheats line up nearer to mobster Al Capone, convicted of federal tax evasion, whereas DREAMers, who want no more than to gain a college education, are truly innocent and should be shown "hospitality" because we may well thereby be entertaining "angels unawares."  Instead, the federal government repeatedly forgives tax violators with nary a peep heard from the anti-amnesty crowd.

Even more alarming, this week a federal judge, appointed by Republican President George H. W. Bush, upheld portions of a vile Alabama law that requires schools to investigate the immigration status of kindergarten through 12th grade students, notwithstanding the 1982 Plyler v. Doe decision which struck down a Texas statute barring undocumented immigrant children from primary and secondary school.  In recalling Plyler, a Washington Post editorial, "Targeting Schoolchildren," zeroed in on the damage that legislatively inscribed hatred of the other (and their children) will cause:  

In turning the schools into immigration registrars, Alabama’s new law flies in the face of good sense and settled law. The Supreme Court has specifically prohibited such registration schemes by the states aimed at immigrants, legal or illegal. And, in a ruling almost 20 years ago, it conferred on undocumented students an unfettered right to a public education through high school.

The court did so for sensible reasons. It noted that there is no legal precedent in America for punishing children for the actions of their parents. Writing for the court in a 1982 decision squashing Texas’s attempt to exclude illegal immigrants from public schools, Justice William Brennan said, “It is difficult to understand precisely what the State hopes to achieve by promoting the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime.”

Apparently, Alabama didn’t get the message. By forcing schools to collect and report data on the immigration status of students and their parents, the state will frighten kids away from attending school.

True to form, CIS heralded the Alabama ruling: 

This decision further helps the legal landscape, generally speaking, for states and localities beating open-borders and leftist warfare by litigation. It improves the prospects of other laws recently enacted in other states withstanding vicious legal attacks.

CIS is quick to bandy the "open borders" epithet (I've been falsely dubbed an "open borders type" in a CIS blog post last summer).  But this self-styled "non-partisan" screed-poster that accuses opponents of the anti-kids Alabama law as "leftist," and Republican presidential contenders who oppose DREAMers, ought to wake up and realize that the biblical remonstration to "suffer the children" did not mean to torment them. 

"Youth! There is nothing like youth. The middle-aged are mortgaged to Life. The old are in Life's lumber-room. But youth is the Lord of Life. Youth has a kingdom waiting for it."

Oscar Wilde, British author.

"Violence among young people ... is an aspect of their desire to create. They don't know how to use their energy creatively so they do the opposite and destroy."

Anthony Burgess, British author.

"Hey. Don't ever let somebody tell you... You can't do something. You got a dream ... You gotta protect it. People can't do somethin' themselves, they wanna tell you you can't do it. If you want somethin', go get it. Period."

Chris Gardner, American author.

Britons are aghast at the rampage, looting and destruction witnessed on the streets of London and other English cities this past week.   Politicians have cut short their normally sacrosanct August holidays in the Tuscan sun to return to an emergency session of Parliament.  British Bobbies are chided for standing by as youthful looters took their sweet time to find just the right mobile phones, pairs of running shoes and assorted Bling to swipe, not with credit cards but five-finger discounts.

The soul-searching and blame-gaming has begun in a country that knows, indeed invented, the Importance of Being Earnest.  One of the most insightful analyses I've seen is Guatam Malkani's "Britain burns the colour of 'A Clockwork Orange," which compares the recent nocturnal uprisings to the 1962 Anthony Burgess novel and "its depiction of a lawless Britain, where the police command neither confidence nor deference and residents live in fear of feral youth".  Malkani, a journalist with the Financial Times, notes the self-destruction that is "more dystopian than even nihilism" in these British rioters:

[The] first buildings and cars to burn in London were not in the resented districts of the rich, but those in the perpetrators' own communities.  So not only was there no discernible political agenda to improve their lot (save for a few fleeting material possessions), the rioters were actually destroying their own.

I can't help but contrast these self-destructive behaviors with the inspiring and courageous actions of America's DREAMers, "a group of approximately 65,000 youth . .  [who] are smeared with an inherited title, an illegal immigrant."  Just compare their sentiments here and here with the behaviors on display across the Atlantic.  If you do, you'll see that Chris Gardner's quote above originating from his memoir, The Pursuit of Happyness, is found among the DREAMers' "Inspirational Quotes," not as a justification to take what is not owned, in the manner of dystopic Brits, but to quest for what one justifiably deserves.

The pain and poignancy of the DREAMers plight is also described in exacting sociological detail by Roberto G. Gonzales ("Learning to Be Illegal: Undocumented Youth and Shifting Legal Contexts in the Transition to Adulthood") and by Immigration Impact, the blog of the Immigration Policy Center ("What’s the Value of Keeping Undocumented Youth in the Shadows?"). 

Yes, the British are justifiably alarmed by their riotous youth.  We Americans, however, should be appalled by our uncivilized adults, who spout platitudes about the rule of law yet deny our American DREAMers the chance to live out their aspirations in laudable and lawful ways. Whose shame is worse?

Oscar Wilde had it right.  The last line of his quote, which I omitted from the excerpt above, could well be referring to the American adults who dash DREAMs: "Every one is born a king, and most people die in exile."

Writing for The Hill, pundit Kathy Kemper just published a thoughtful piece on "Debt and immigration."  In it she contrasts American policy-makers' obsession with the financial Sword of Damocles, set to behead us on August 2, with Norway's all-consuming focus on the aftermath of a xenophobic madman's gutless acts of murder and mayhem. 

Americans, it seems, can think only of financial insecurity (apparently because Casey Anthony remains in hiding), while Norwegians grapple with societal insecurities and aspirations, and ultimately, the proper response to racial and religious hatred.

Kemper reasons that security is about more than fiscal rectitude and the age-old debate over spending on guns versus butter:   

In reality, defending the homeland requires a continuous flow of the world’s best: individuals who understand the changing constellation of threats to our nation; discern which among those will grow more important in the years to come; and design “hard” systems and “soft” policies to respond to them dynamically.

There are at least two other reasons why immigration is so crucial:

(1) ‪It keeps our nation young. Indeed, if — and it’s a big if — we’re able to sustain our immigrant inflow, we should be able to avoid the demographic challenges that beset the EU and ‬Japan (and which, within another decade or two, will begin to take a toll on China).

(2) America, above all, is an idea, perhaps the most important component of which is openness: openness to people, to ideas, to risk taking. An America that closes itself off will guarantee its decline. Harvard University’s Joe Nye has argued that “the greatest danger to America is not debt, political paralysis or China; it is parochialism, turning away from the openness that is the source of its strength and resting on its laurels.”

If, as Kemper rightly posits, America is an idea, then to keep our mental synapses firing, we as a nation need many more immigration thought leaders. 

In the immigration sphere, thought leaders are not likely or often found in the halls of Congress.  Rather, they are all around us -- in our schools, coffee shops, law offices, think tanks and foundations.  They are Tweeters, bloggers, artists, activists, journalists and especially, DREAMers.  While they can be sighted in many places across the country, their numbers are insufficient to turn the tide of anti-immigrant hate speech, jingoism and Fortress-America messaging that passes as the "fair and balanced" offering of competing ideas. 

Immigration thought leadership is about speaking truth to power, about setting aside any pretense of faux objectivity, as Paul Krugman opined today in "The Centrist Cop-Out":

Some of us have long complained about the cult of “balance,” the insistence on portraying both parties as equally wrong and equally at fault on any issue, never mind the facts.

I've thought quite a bit about the scarcity of immigration thought leadership (especially when my muse escapes me on any given Saturday as I scrounge for a fresh topic to post on dysfunctionality in our visa and entry policies).  Recently, Martindale-Connected, the social media site for lawyers, offered me the chance to ruminate on thought leadership via podcast (available here) and in writing here: "5 Steps to Go From Thoughtful Lawyer to Thought Leader on Social Media Sites (and Other Places)."

The five steps I described apply to any form of thought leadership, but especially to immigration and to budding thought leaders with no "Esq." after their names:

1. Thought Leadership Requires a Provocative and Enduring Topic. Blogging and article writing often serve as the centerpiece of many a thought-leadership strategy. More than a few lawyers who blog or write law-related articles, however, make the mistake of using the medium as merely a way of reporting on key cases and new statutes in order to demonstrate expertise in the subject. Thought leadership demands more. Thought leaders do not merely report new legal developments; they shed light on fundamental problems, offer critical analysis, discuss practical implications in the real world, and suggest solutions. Thought leaders are never boring. They take adverse possession from other lawyers over a particular area of law and own it by developing a voice and overcoming the fear of being too controversial. They select a topic that interests them (so that their passion remains on display), and a subject with legs that will generate eyeballs. One way to do this is by focusing on the actions of the government, federal or state, executive, legislative or judicial. As my blog www.NationOfImmigrators.com, illustrates, government officials are always doing something controversial that upsets someone. A controversial topic is one that readers naturally want to understand. The thought leader’s writings help them, over time, to understand the controversy and make up their own minds. Thought leaders are not afraid of controversy, but they always remember that they need not become the controversy.
2. Thought Leaders Are Remarkable and Grow a Tribe. Seth Godin is a maven of thought leadership. Among many of Seth’s suggestions, two stand out: A) Be remarkable; and B) Build a tribe. Thought leaders generate conversations. They are worthy of discussion among existing and prospective clients, colleagues, government officials and adversaries. They are remarkable. They are never boring or lackluster, and are not afraid of tooting their individual horns tastefully, for unless they do, they know that there might not be any music. Given these characteristics, thought leaders necessarily draw people to them. They form a tribe around their chosen topic, a community of interest, not necessarily all of like mind, that wants to know and learn more. Ask yourself, Attorney: Is your writing dull and soporific? Do you reflect your passion in your posts? Do you offer a point of view? Do you go outside your comfort zone in expressing yourself in visible ways? Are you operating from a Rolodex of disconnected people or have you built a network of thoughtful and interested members who see you as a thought leader? Do you share with your tribe the interesting thoughts of others? Do you connect tribe members with each other?
3. Thought Leaders Understand and Use Leverage. Thought leaders do not write single articles. They mount visibility campaigns around each and every article they author. Thought leaders know (no matter what a publisher says) to keep the copyright on their writings so that they can be repurposed in other publications, perhaps with an updated or tailored introduction to suit the new audience, or perhaps not. They Tweet and post status updates in Facebook and LinkedIn about every one of their articles, speeches, case victories (with client consent) or significant activities, offering link-backs to their analytical writings and their online profiles. They also regularly post links to new government announcements, new cases and statutes and the writings of others, usually also with a link to their own analysis of the latest development and its impact, and suggested strategies. They join and actively participate in Martindale Connected. They post articles on Google Knol and search for article directories to find additional opportunities and venues through which to post.
4. Thought Leaders are Disciplined and Reliable. No flash in the pan, thought leaders understand that consistent messaging, over time, with predictable regularity, is the only way to gain visibility and mindshare. Rain or shine, they write, post, update, Tweet and repeat the cycle, over and over. Too many lawyers think that one article every six months is enough to produce results. It is not. Thought leaders recognize that building a tribe means being responsible to your community. It is less a job than a calling. Nothing is worse for one’s reputation as a thought leader than a blog with a stale posting, months old, or the occasional posting, months apart.
5. Thought Leaders are Ethical and Responsible. Publicity without propriety does not a thought leader make. Thought leaders respect the rules of professional responsibility, refrain from misrepresenting the truth or engaging in personal attacks, label their writings as “attorney advertising” where required by state ethics rules, and do not take public positions that conflict with the interests of their clients. Thought leaders are not empty suits. They provide excellent client service and zealous advocacy, for these attributes are not only inherently important but also create the environment from which new insights and thoughts with which to exhibit leadership sprout.

If we Americans are to maintain our unhaughty claim of Exceptionalism, that is, our heritage as a perpetually vibrant and constantly replenished nation of immigrants, then we must produce many more thought leaders who can win what Kemper describes as the "debate over immigration [which] gets to who we are and, more importantly, who we will be." The growing ranks of immigration thought leaders, however, must not, as Krugman warns, make "nebulous calls for centrism, [the] big cop-out. . . that only encourages more bad behavior."  Rather, in my view, they must call out extremism wherever it surfaces and help direct our people to embrace the nation's true saving grace -- more enlightened and just immigration policies.

As economic opportunities appear to diminish in the United States, global mobility management has become the hottest trend in migration. 

In the globalized world, executives, entrepreneurs, investors and talented workers are voting with their feet and moving to places where economic opportunities entice.  (For background, see my recently published article, "Global Mobility Management - A Primer for Chief Legal Officers and HR Executives," co-authored with in-house counsel, Mareza Estevez of Cognizant Technology Solutions, and Peter Schiron, Jr., of Deloitte LLP, available in British and American English.)

One way I follow trends in global mobility is by using Twitter and other social media, gushing fonts of useful information often hidden within torrents of dreck and dross.   (An enlightened writer, Maria Popova, who maintains a website called Brain Pickings, considers the thoughtful filtering of valuable Twitter content as a new form of creative authorship, dubbed "content curation."  I riffed recently with Ted Chiappari on Popova's theme in a curation of our own, a découpage depicting developments in U.S. employer sanctions entitled "Informational Abundance and Scarcity in Immigration Worksite Enforcement.")

Developments in global mobility are seen, for example, in a recent social media thread spotlighting a new amendment, effective shortly, to the immigration laws of the United Arab Emirates.  The UAE will soon allow investors of at least Dh 1 Million (a bit more than U.S.$ 272,000) in real estate to receive residence visas for thee years instead of the current six-month period of stay. The visa change "is expected to help revive the depressed real estate market, which is looking at a huge over-supply in the coming months," according to a local report.  Already, Dubai shares and UAE property values have increased.  The Emirates' real estate investor category will reportedly make life easier for holders of this visa, "such as [when] applying for a local driving [license], [and] personal loans and getting admission to schools."

The new UAE investor visa came to mind as I reflected on two recent business and family trips to Detroit, my hometown, where  I spent my fondly remembered childhood on the gritty streets of its inner city (near Gratiot and Mack Avenues).  Sadly to me, however, my boyhood home of the 1950s-1960s, and virtually all of the structures on the block where I lived (save for a since-erected CVS pharmacy), were long ago demolished.  A city with a population that peaked at about 1.8 million in the 1950s, Detroit last year numbered just over 700,000 inhabitants, and contributed to Michigan's sad distinction as the only state to have "suffered an overall population decline between 2000 and 2010." 

Some in the city are making plans to relocate residents and to group homes together, that is, to "shrink," as the New York Times phrased it in an April, 2011 story.  Others are trying new ways to put the economic mojo back in Motown, as the Wall St. Journal and Forbes reported recently. As a letter writer commenting on the Wall St. Journal piece observed, however:

A city's real strength is its people:  entrepreneurs who can imagine, hard workers who can produce, creative types who can inspire and families who can build. People came to Detroit for one reason: jobs. People will return for the same reason. Figure out how to create these jobs, and the rest will follow.  

Michigan's Republican governor will soon make a major speech in Detroit on "Immigration and Michigan." I have no idea what he will say. Presumably, it will be on "Global Michigan," an effort by the "Michigan Department of Civil Rights and the Michigan Economic Development Corporation to find new ways to encourage more highly educated immigrants . . . to come to Michigan to work and live," beyond merely the "cool factor" luring the adventurous, young and artsy to Detroit.   

If I were ghostwriting his talk, I'd suggest that he urge the Obama Administration to amend existing U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services regulations to establish a new category of employment authorization (the power to grant work permits inherently rests within the Executive Branch, and numerous administrations before this incumbent have long exercised that authority). 

This initiative could be modeled after the much heralded U.S. Department of Education program, Race to the Top, and dubbed the "Race to the EAD" (Employment Authorization Document).  It would allow states like Michigan to submit economic revitalization proposals under which federally approved projects would allow promising and worthy nonimmigrant and conditional immigrant investors and entrepreneurs as well as state-recommended recipients of deferred action -- after careful screening for security and criminal risks -- to obtain a renewable EAD in reasonable increments (say, two or three years at a time). 

The chosen Race to the EAD projects would be periodically reviewed by government auditors in order to determine the extent to which EAD holders as a group have meaningfully followed through on their commitments and thereby contributed to economic growth, thus entitling them to receive EAD renewals. 

A state whose proposal is federally approved in the Race to the EAD program, as I envision it, would likely be very attractive to foreign citizens because it would not only allow for work permits based on investments and entrepreneurial activities but make life easier for the EAD holder when "applying for a local driving [license], personal loans and . . . admission to schools," much like the UAE property investor category. 

I've blogged before on this topic, but I'm clearly not the first to conceive it.  Financial reporter, Ezra Klein, of the Washington Post was an early espouser as was the State of Utah with its new guest worker program that, to be sure, will require a federal waiver.  Earlier still, the Race to the EAD concept is essentially a modern-day variation on a previous federal inducement to take down roots and prosper through property improvement and investment, America's Homestead Act. 

A more recent precedent also comes to mind.  Despite vehement protests from the right, President Obama took bold steps to save the domestic auto industry, and thereby help a cluster of states, including Michigan, preserve and create numerous jobs. Candidate Romney's non-credible protestations notwithstanding, U.S. auto companies in Michigan and other states are now on the mend and beginning to prosper.  A similar demonstration of executive chutzpah in launching, by regulation, a Race to the EAD program, would likewise spawn a virtuous cycle of rebirth and revitalization in my downtrodden hometown and many other job-starved communities throughout America.   

* * *

[Blogger's note:  The photo above is of the Groeschel Building.  The corner store in the building was a barbershop where I got my hair cut by Joe Messina, a buzz cut in the summer, a bit longer the rest of the year.  Photo source: Detroit: The History and Future of the Motor City, maintained by University of Michigan Sociology Professor, Reynolds Farley.]

As early as last January, Rep. Lamar Smith, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, outlined plans to hold hearings to investigate the Obama Administration's policies on immigration-related worksite enforcement and propose a bill that would require employers to enroll in E-Verify, the Federal online screening tool that purports to verify work eligibility. 

True to his word, hearings on worksite enforcement and E-Verify have been held. And at last, a draft of a mandatory E-Verify bill, current as of June 8, is circulating on Capitol Hill.  Tentatively titled the “Legal Workforce Act” (LWA) and labeled a "Discussion Draft," the proposal would profoundly change hiring processes in the United States, and introduce expensive compliance obligations on all employers.  It would also increase the burdens on federal and state courts and on public and private prisons by creating a host of new LWA criminal penalties involving sentences to run consecutively (read: longer incarceration periods). 

Curious readers can take an early peek at a few key provisions of Rep. Smith's proposal:

• Mandatory Use Phased in.  Employers would be required to enroll and use E-Verify by a set deadline based on the number of current workers.  From the date LWA is enacted (if ever), E-Verify would be required within: 30 days for covered federal contractors; six months (for employers of 10,000 of more personnel); 12 months (for firms with 500 to 9,999 employees); 18 months (20 to 499 workers); two years (1 to 19 workers); and three years (for employers of farm workers).
• E-Verify Use Only for New Hires. Except for federal vendors who must verify current employees assigned to a covered federal contract, the LWA will only apply to new hires.  Also, it will not apply to farm workers returning to a former employer.
• No Preemption of AZ-style E-Verify Laws. LWA would permit the proliferation of state laws and local rules mandating E-Verify use as recently blessed by the Supreme Court in U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting: "A State, locality, municipality, or political subdivision may exercise its authority over business licensing and similar laws as a penalty for failure to use the verification system".  
• Weakened Good Faith Compliance Defense.  The LWA enfeebles the Sonny Bono amendment, enacted in 1996, which gives employers 10 days to correct technical or procedural Form I-9compliance failures after ICE points them out.  Although the Smith proposal would extend the curative period to 30 days, it would apply the defense only to compliance errors that are "de minimus."  Good faith compliance would be available, however, for E-Verify queries that failed because the online system was unavailable at the time.
• Criminal Penalties for false I-9 attestations and improper use of E-Verify.  Individuals would face criminal penalties of up to two years and fines for knowingly furnishing a social security number or DHS-approved ID or authorization number that does not belong to the person or submitting such a number in an E-Verify screening. Helpfully, however, the LWA waives a good faith first violation of the unlawful hiring rules.
• Change in retention period.  Employers would now be required to hold on to electronic or paper verification records for the later of five years from date of hire (currently it's three years) or one year from date of termination.

Back in January, Rep. Smith characterized mandatory E-Verify usage as something of a no-brainer, or in business-speak as low-hanging fruit, suggesting that 70% of Americans would agree with his assertion.  Given the sweeping harshness of the LWA, however, U.S. employers, proponents of immigrant rights and the American people must do more than just talk about Rep. Smith's "Discussion Draft."  The fruity guantlet from the right has been hurled into the political arena.  It's time to give it the Gallagher treatment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Obama has put on a good show lately about the need for the populace to rise up and pressure the GOP to enact comprehensive immigration reform.  He urges citizens to begin "a national conversation on immigration reform that builds a bipartisan consensus to fix our broken immigration system so it works for America’s 21st century economy."  With the White House claiming that "he can’t do it alone," he asks you and me to host  roundtables that will "help bring the debate to your community." 

Were it not for the Republicans who keep moving the goal posts on border security, he claimed on May 10 in El Paso, we'd be able, together, to devise the grand solution that fixes our nation's wholly dysfunctional immigration system: 

We have gone above and beyond what was requested by the very Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement. All the stuff they asked for, we’ve done. But even though we’ve answered these concerns, I’ve got to say I suspect there are still going to be some who are trying to move the goal posts on us one more time. . . . they said we needed to triple the Border Patrol. Or now they’re going to say we need to quadruple the Border Patrol. Or they’ll want a higher fence. Maybe they’ll need a moat. (Laughter.) Maybe they want alligators in the moat. (Laughter.) They’ll never be satisfied. And I understand that. That’s politics.

Some may be moved by his crocodile tears to swallow the notion that his hands are tied. I have a few words in response:  Balderdash. Bunkum. Hogwash. Fiddle-faddle.

Either this president is not the analytical, data-gathering, cooly-decisive and valiant leader portrayed by the media, particularly since the takedown of Osama Bid Laden, or, he is playing politics with people's lives and "America’s 21st century economy."  There's no need to repeat previous posts (here, here, here, here, here and there) on his broad executive authority to ameliorate the traumas endured by DREAMers and the other undocumented among us. 

The simple fact, known all too well by immigration insiders but rarely reported, is that President Obama could vastly improve America's competitiveness and stop the flight of foreign talent back to their homelands by reversing or recalibrating several administrative rules or rulings that have long thrown foreign entrepreneurs into the moat with the immigration alligators.  

Here are some things that President Obama could accomplish immediately, solely by executive action, to allow existing America's immigration laws to help create jobs:

• Restore Self-Sponsorship for Working Owners. Since 2010, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has prevented foreign entrepreneurs from receiving an H-1B visa (for workers in specialty occupations).  The agency took this action notwithstanding four precedent decisions, Matter of Aphrodite Investments Limited (1980), Matter of Tessel (1980), Matter of Allan Gee, Inc. (1979) and Matter of M--  (1958), that allowed a foreign citizen to incorporate a business and use the entity to sponsor the individual's work visa or green card.  The President could easily order USCIS to withdraw the 2010 USCIS memorandum that abruptly strayed from precedent decisions, as the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) has urged. 
• Restore L-1A Function-Manager Eligibility. The Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT) allows managers of essential corporate functions to qualify for an L-1A work visa (for intracompany transferees) and a first preference green card (for multinational managers).  Before IMMACT, only managers of personnel could be granted these benefits.  USCIS routinely denies function-manager requests by claiming that the person does not manage the particular function but primarily performs the function.  This interpretation has rendered the function-manager category a dead letter.  Congress had no need to create the function manager classification in IMMACT if subordinate personnel were to be required to perform the function (so that the function manager could manage it) since a people-manager category already existed. To offer a simple example, a corporate controller under the current USCIS interpretation cannot qualify as a function manager unless the person manages other people -- something that controllers rarely do. The President can easily remedy this mistaken interpretation by instructing USCIS that managers of key corporate components and functions are eligible for function-manager designation even if the individual also performs the function.  This would allow foreign entrepreneurs to create new U.S. businesses and start creating jobs for U.S. workers right away.
• Restore L-1B Specialized-Knowledge Eligibility. The USCIS Office of Public Outreach got an earful of criticism last week from stakeholders urging the agency to revert to longstanding interpretations of eligibility for an L-1B intracompany transferee visa under the specialized knowledge subcategory. In the teleconference, callers explained that the L-1B had been properly interpreted for decades until 2008 when a non-precedent decision of the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office without warning dramatically restricted its interpretation of L-1B specialized knowledge. Here too, the President could swiftly help foreign entrepreneurs create American jobs by restoring their longstanding ability to send key workers with specialized knowledge to the United States. 
• Expand Schedule A to include “special-merit” foreign citizens.  The Department of Labor (DOL) under its Schedule A regulation has long allowed persons whose skills are in short supply to avoid the labor market test normally required and obtain an employment-based green card. Schedule A now includes registered nurses, physical therapists and persons of exceptional ability. Back in 2002, AILA asked the DOL but the agency refused to expand Schedule A by allowing "special-merit" foreign citizens to immigrate. AILA made this request because the normal labor market rules deprive a wide array of worthy aliens of any opportunity for PERM labor certification.  Individuals in the unwelcome category include investors, entrepreneurs and working owners, and foreign-born employees who are “so inseparable from the sponsoring employer because of his or her pervasive presence and personal attributes that the employer would be unlikely to continue in operations without the alien”.  Under orders from the President, the expanded use of Schedule A for these special-merit foreign citizens would allow fair consideration of deserving cases that have had little or no access to labor certification under the current system.
• Allow the filing (but not the approval) of green card applications before the visa quota is open. Today, because of quota backlogs and an unfair allocation system, a person born in India holding a university degree, whose employer's immigrant visa petition has been approved, may have to wait as much as 20 years before being allowed just to file a green card (adjustment of status) application. The wait is only marginally less for those born in China.  During that time, the person's spouse and working-age children ordinarily cannot work, and the children are at risk of "aging-out" -- reaching age 21 and thus losing green-card eligibility. What's worse, if the foreign worker loses his job in the meantime, the whole immigration sponsorship process (if the family involved has the stomach to pursue it) must go back to square one. As much as America may otherwise be attractive to foreign entrepreneurs and key workers, no sane person would find the risk and limitations of these waiting periods enticing.  In a New York minute, if he were so inclined, President Obama could make the wait more tolerable.  All he'd need to do is instruct USCIS to accept for filing adjustment applications for the beneficiaries of approved immigrant visa petitions and issue a rule freezing the dependent children's age as of the date of filing the green card application.  This way, in the interim until the quota is current, the spouse and working-age children could work or study, and the foreign employee would not be tempted to give up on America, return home and compete against us.

President Obama is no fool.  He understands the link between immigration, innovation and job creation, as he explained to the crowd in El Paso:

[O]ur laws discourage [foreign students educated in the U.S.] from using those skills to start a business or a new industry here in the United States. Instead of training entrepreneurs to stay here, we train them to create jobs for our competition. That makes no sense. In a global marketplace, we need all the talent we can attract, all the talent we can get to stay here to start businesses -- not just to benefit those individuals, but because their contribution will benefit all Americans. 

Look at Intel, look at Google, look at Yahoo, look at eBay. All those great American companies, all the jobs they've created, everything that has helped us take leadership in the high-tech industry, every one of those was founded by, guess who, an immigrant. (Applause.) 

So we don’t want the next Intel or the next Google to be created in China or India. We want those companies and jobs to take root here. (Applause.) Bill Gates gets this. He knows a little something about the high-tech industry. He said, “The United States will find it far more difficult to maintain its competitive edge if it excludes those who are able and willing to help us compete.” 

So immigration is not just the right thing to do. It’s smart for our economy. It’s smart for our economy. (Applause.) And it’s for this reason that businesses all across America are demanding that Washington finally meet its responsibilities to solve the immigration problem.

Why does the President wait for Congress to act when he has his executive pen in his pocket?  Why should immediate job creation be held hostage to Washingtonian impasse, when the job-eating immigration alligators under his control can be easily restrained?  I'm no politico, but it's politics, I suppose.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On February 18 and 19, the University of California (Irvine) hosted a symposium where many of U.S. immigration's Rock-Star professors came together to try and solve "Persistent Puzzles in Immigration Law."  The topics covered a wide expanse. A subject discussed that particularly interested me is Congress's often inexplicable delegation of regulatory authority among a surfeit of federal agencies that administer and enforce the immigration laws, each with its area of real (or presumed) expertise and overlapping responsibilities. 

One speaker mentioned her concern about the possible mis-use of E-Verify by some employers to screen current or would-be workers for employment eligibility, even though that kind of screening violates the terms of use under the memorandum of understanding with Homeland Security (DHS).  She proposed that perhaps Congress should authorize the Department of Labor (DOL) to investigate and punish this type of violation.  During the Q & A, I suggested that, even if the problem is as widespread as the speaker feared, the Department of Justice (DOJ) should do the policing, because, based on my experience, DOL must first improve its abysmal record of administering the immigration laws before Congress grants it any more power.

Regular readers of this blog would be forgiven for assuming, given my recent rants on labor certification (here and here), that the DOL's PERM program had come to my mind.  No, actually I was thinking of the H-1B program and a January 2011 Government Accountability Office report (GAO-11-26). Although the report contains a wealth of data, and is written from a glass-half-empty perspective, it actually shows that access to cheap foreign labor -- the usual slam against the category -- is not the real motivation for its use.  Rather, as the National Foundation for American Policy notes in its analysis of the GAO data, "hiring the best candidate for the job, whether U.S.-born or foreign-born, is the primary consideration for employers" who sponsor H-1B workers.

I will offer many critiques of the economy-harming H-1B program in future blog postings, and assail the GAO's flawed analysis and implied bias reflected in the title of its report ("H-1B VISA PROGRAM - Reforms Are Needed to Minimize the Risks and Costs of Current Program").  For now, in the au courant Washington spirit of reducing government expenditures and eliminating unnecessary regulations that burden business, I propose that Congress take the DOL out of the H-1B application process altogether, and that USCIS serve solely to approve or deny H-1B visa petitions and grants of nonimmigrant status.  

To gain a visual understanding of my point, consider this GAO chart depicting the current H-1B process:

As the chart shows, the only role for the DOL at the outset of the H-1B process is to perform a ministerial task, i.e., to review an employer attestation form (known as the Labor Condition Application or LCA) to confirm that it is not "incomplete or obviously inaccurate."  The GAO agrees with me that Congress should consider eliminating this step, and instead requiring U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to receive and certify the LCA when adjudicating the H-1B visa petition:

To reduce duplication and fragmentation in the administration and oversight of the H-1B application process, consistent with past GAO matters for congressional consideration, [Congress should] consider eliminating the requirement that employers first submit a Labor Condition Application (LCA) to the Department of Labor for certification, and require instead that employers submit this application along with the I-129 application to the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for review.

Eliminating the LCA review by DOL would shave seven days off the time it takes before USCIS can adjudicate an H-1B petition, since this is the time Congress provided the DOL to "certify" the LCA. This savings of time is especially important each year in March when every day counts as employers scramble to file their H-1B petitions by April Fools Day in order to fall within the woefully small H-1B annual quota. 

USCIS opposes the GAO's suggestion, however, offering the following rationale to the GAO:

Homeland Security officials believed that Labor would be better suited to review the LCA because Labor has specialized knowledge about the computation of prevailing wages.

USCIS's justification for shirking a task that would result in an obvious time- and cost-savings doesn't stand up to close scrutiny.  Most employers use the DOL's online O*Net database and Standard Occupational Classifications to obtain the prevailing wage, and USCIS could easily cross-check those sources (as it now does with its VIBE system) to make sure the correct wage figure is used.  Even in the comparatively rare situations where an employer submits an alternate wage source, USCIS could easily adopt and apply DOL's regulations on the requirements for use of a union contract, an "independent authoritative source" survey, or "[an]other legitimate source" of prevailing wage data, or consult with the DOL.

Avoiding front-end delay is just a first step in process improvement.  The more urgent challenge is how best to consolidate enforcement of the H-1 program in one agency.  The current enforcement hodgepodge is reflected in this GAO chart:   

There is no reason that H-1B employers, by regulation, must be prepared to face a triad of investigations by three federal agencies housed in three different departments.  H-1B enforcement responsibility should be consolidated into one agency, and the rules governing the procedures, scope and duration of an investigation, along with employer due process protections (such as the Good Faith Compliance defense added by the H-1B Visa Reform Act of 2004) should be promulgated under the customary requirements of public notice and opportunity for comment under the Administrative Procedures Act. 

As I suggested to the immigration law professors, my recommendation would be to place all immigration policing authority with the Office of Special Counsel for Unfair Immigration-Related Employment Practices (OSC) in the Justice Department under an expanded grant of authority.  The money we'd save and the burdens lifted by permitting USCIS to serve as sole H-1B adjudicator and pinning on OSC the lone sheriff's star would be substantial. An added benefit would be that a neutral actor, the Justice Department, would have no dog in the fight, unlike the DOL whose mission is "foster[ing] and promot[ing] the welfare of the job seekers, wage earners, and retirees of the United States," rather than according fair process to employers. 

So, Congress, in keeping with the zeitgeist, can you spell?:

I-M-M-I-G-R-A-T-I-O-N

D-E-F-I-C-I-T

R-E-D-U-C-T-I-O-N

Guest Column by Christina LaBrie

On April 2, 2007, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will begin accepting petitions for H-1B temporary workers. This seemingly insignificant event has turned into the source of great anxiety for U.S. employers.

U.S. law limits the number of H-1B visas available each year to 65,000, with an additional 20,000 for individuals with advanced degrees from U.S. institutions. Since the limit was reduced in fiscal year 2004, the visas have been exhausted quickly, long before the workers can even begin employment on October 1. As the filing period for H-1Bs shrinks, the madness competition for the visas grows. This year, the USCIS has indicated that it is preparing for the possibility that the agency will receive enough petitions to reach the cap on the first day of acceptance. What results is a mad dash to the H-1B finish line, particularly for large companies that rely on foreign-born workers to fill computer and technology positions.

H-1B season has become a competitive sport for immigration attorneys. We engage in inane conversations about tricks for getting packages to the top of the pile and plan clandestine trips to remote USCIS service centers to deliver H-1B packages by hand at the stroke of midnight. Each year the USCIS throws a curve ball late in the game. Last year, it was an eleventh-hour notice that all petitions must be filed at a single service center in order to facilitate accurate counting. We scrambled to change cover letters and shipping labels. This year, an announcement was recently made that two service centers would be accepting petitions based on the location of the job. Apparently, accuracy must give way to 15 tons of paper.

When our immigration system starts to look like Toys "R" Us on the day after Thanksgiving, something is very wrong.

There is no legitimate policy reason to award visas for temporary workers in specialty occupations based on the reliability of the delivery carrier. When the H-1B filing dust settles, American companies will be left wondering why they are not given the tools to bring highly educated foreign workers to the U.S. to fill vacancies and support economic growth. Last week, Bill Gates testified before Congress in favor of removing limits on H-1B visas to increase America’s competitiveness.

Anti-immigrant sentiment dominates the current debate and few politicians are willing to support programs that permit the entry of greater numbers of foreign nationals. Restrictionists argue that H-1B temporary workers displace U.S. workers and drive down wages. These claims ignore two important facts: H-1B workers must be paid the "prevailing wage" as determined by the U.S. Department of Labor and along with each H-1B petition, employers are required to pay $1,500 for training programs for U.S. workers. U.S. companies would be happy to hire qualified U.S. workers, avoiding H-1B madness and expense, but as Gates explained, there simply are not enough available.

It is possible to improve the H-1B system without opening the immigration floodgates. The annual cap could be designed to respond to demand – increasing each year if the previous year’s visas were used up – rather than setting arbitrary numerical limits. A responsive system would allow the U.S. to retain foreign nationals trained in U.S. schools and would encourage economic growth. On the other hand, incremental increases would allay fears of too many foreign nationals entering the work force at one time.

Until Congress addresses the failing H-1B system, businesses will be left to fight each other every year for the highly-coveted H-1B visas. Immigration lawyers will work long hours during this short season and courier services will reap the rewards of one very busy day. On April 2, if demand exceeds the supply of visas, the USCIS will select petitions by random lottery. Our country needs a thoughtful, realistic approach to immigration, not a one-day temporary worker lottery.