Stuart Smalley.jpgEver since the people of Minnesota elected Al Franken their U.S. senator, there’s been a hole in my comedic heart.  The good Senator doesn’t keep counsel with me, but I’ve discerned that he’s made a personal vow to never again offer a hint of his former incarnation as one of the nation’s most hilarious comedians and sketch comedy artists.  

In other words, he has adopted a serious mien, a gravitas befitting his membership in that elite conclave of the 100.  So far as I can tell, he hasn’t said anything really funny since before July 7, 2009 (when he took his senatorial oath before Vice President Joe Biden), and has rarely even mentioned the word “comedy” (except when offering a eulogy to his former writing partner, Tom Davis).

But since last Thursday, I have been consoled, although not comedically.  That’s when I was reminded of his famous role on Saturday Night Live as the “caring nurturer” and “member of several 12-step programs,” Stuart Smalley.

 

 

I thought then of Stuart’s famous tag line, and tweaked it because of what Sen. Franklin did. He clearly showed that he’s still more than “good enough . . .  [and] smart enough,”  and that “doggone it [immigration reform advocates really] like [him].”  

While nonetheless sticking to his vow of steadfast unfunniness, he persuaded his colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee to adopt by voice vote an amendment (Franken 4) to the Gang of Eight’s comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) bill, S. 744.  If CIR is enacted with Franken 4 included, it would establish within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) an “Office of the Small Business and Employee Advocate” (the SBE Advocate), whose purpose would be to “assist small businesses [firms with 49 or fewer employees] and individuals in complying with the [Form I-9 (employment-eligibility-verification) requirements” of the immigration laws, “including the resolution of conflicts arising in the course of attempted compliance with such requirements.”

The new role for the SBE Advocate complements the expanded authority of the USCIS Ombudsman under another amendment engrafted onto S. 744.  Like the Ombudsman, the SBE Advocate is empowered to provide assistance to the public, resolve I-9 compliance problems and make recommendations for changes to immigration laws and regulations.  

Unlike the bully-pulpit authority of the Ombudsman, however, the SBE Advocate would be authorized to issue an “Assistance Order” if any employer (not just a small business) or an individual has suffered or will likely suffer a “significant hardship” relating to I-9 compliance.  The SBE Advocate can also consider “significant hardship” more favorably to the small business or individual if USCIS does not follow its own “applicable published administrative guidance” and require the Secretary of Homeland Security under the terms of an Assistance Order:

  • to cease any action, take any action, or refrain from taking any action, with respect to the small business or individual under the I-9 provisions of the immigration laws; 
  • to determine whether any employee is or is not authorized to work in the United States; or 
  • to abate any penalty under such laws that the SBE Advocate determines is inappropriate or excessive.

The anticipated creation of the Office of SBE Advocate follows on the longstanding difficulties encountered by small businesses in trying to comply with immigration law requirements and the more recent laudable attempts by USCIS to espouse (and, alas, inconsistently demonstrate) support for small-business entrepreneurship under that agency’s Entrepreneurs in Residence program, which has provided useful training to its adjudicators and continues to grow.

So, all in all, I’m pleased with Sen. Franken and his Minnesota niceness; but I still miss Stuart Smalley.  Although mollified by Franken 4, but still unable to fill that comedic hole in my heart, I searched the web to find out what morphed Stuart into Senator Franken. Lo and behold I think I’ve found it.  It was obviously his encounter with erstwhile presidential candidate and inventor of the internet, Al Gore, that turned Stuart into a politico:

Doggone you, Al Gore!

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

No more hurting people.jpg

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.
  • Lu Lingzi.jpgHumanize 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.”

Thumbnail image for rainbow arc.jpgAll of us at times become dispirited.  

As I’ve viewed immigration over the last 40 years, passionate advocates have come and gone, fortunate foreign citizens have been granted green cards and then naturalized; but the harshness and hard-heartedness of immigration law as a reflection of American cultural norms hasn’t really diminished.

For example, back in the 1980s I set a personal goal (to help end consular absolutism and introduce a measure of fairness into the visa process). In this, I have utterly failed, and have at times trended toward despondency.

Although some of the State Department’s power has shifted to Homeland Security, State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs has defended the prerogatives of consular officers like a hyper-vigilant Tiger Mom. Despite many articles, blog posts, ABA and AILA resolutions, and open-mike challenges at State Department public forums, visa refusals based on the decisions of consular officers on questions of fact remain virtually unassailable, as a March 28, 2013 decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals painfully affirmed.

But occasional discouragement is not  surrender.  As Martin Luther King, Jr., reminds and emboldens us, “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

Developments this past week in American immigration have proved him right.

On Friday, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agreed to pay $1 million in settlement to a group of plaintiffs for early-morning home raids that terrorized their children. Adriana Aguilar, a U.S. citizen and the lead plaintiff, described the pain that jack-booted action by federal officers caused:

My son, who was just four years old, was crying in fear of gunmen in his home at four in the morning . . . We asked them to show a warrant or any other authority they had for being inside our home. They ignored us.

Earlier in the week, the Associated Press announced that it would no longer include the term, “illegal immigrant,” in its authoritative Stylebook — the journalist’s bible. According to its Senior Vice President and Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll, the move is part of an ongoing effort by the AP to rid the Stylebook of labels (thus, schizophrenic is replaced by person afflicted with schizophrenia).   As she explained:

It’s kind of a lazy device that those of us who type for a living can become overly reliant on as a shortcut . . . It ends up pigeonholing people or creating long descriptive titles where you use some main event in someone’s life to become the modifier before their name.

Unpacking the AP move, MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry and a panel of thoughtful analysts offered a “MUST-WATCH” in-depth assessment of just how profound this arc-bending action in dropping the “illegal” slur is.  The panel likened the groundswell of opposition pressuring the AP on its use of the shortcuts, “illegals” and “illegal immigrant,” to the lunchroom sit-ins of the Civil Rights Movement, when “colored” people were charged with illegality by virtue of geography, punished for where they sat on the planet or in the diner (or in the case of aspiring Americans, on the wrong side of a border):

 

 

Within hours of the AP change — even faster than the two days after the Republican debacle at the polls it took Sean Hannity to flip on legalization — the New York Times responded in kind.  Through its Public Editor, Margaret Sullivan (who last October declined to recommend any such change because readers wouldn’t benefit), the Grey Lady announced that “for the past couple of months, [theTimes] has also been considering changes to its stylebook entry on this term and will probably announce them to staff members this week.”

The last big thing came to view yesterday. The New York Times posted an obituary announcing the death on March 17 of Lawrence H. Fuchs. I didn’t know or remember Mr. Fuchs, but the headline describing him as “Expert on Immigration,” caught my eye. The obit alerted me to the seminal role he played leading up to the Reagan-era legalization program, describing him as “a federal government adviser [who in 1986] helped lay the groundwork for the last major overhaul of American immigration law.”

Embarrassed about my unfamiliarity with Mr. Fuchs, and curious too, I Googled his name and found the preface to one of his books on Amazon. What he wrote there made me realize that immigration reform has already begun, that the great cultural integration of which he speaks began again — like unseen swirls in the tide of change, cresting into huge waves bigger than Sandy — on November 8:

Since the Second World War the national unity of Americans has been tied increasingly to a strong civic culture that permits and protects expressions of ethnic and religious diversity based on individual rights and that also inhibits and ameliorates conflict among religious, ethnic, and racial groups. It is the civic culture that unites Americans and protects their freedom—including their right to be ethnic. . . .

The system would not be severely tested as long as most immigrants were English or Scots. The new republic, as George Washington said in his farewell address, was united by “the same religion, manners, habits and political principles.” But differences in religion, habit, and manners proliferated after the immigration of large numbers of Germans (many of whom were Catholic), Scandinavians and Irish Catholics throughout the last sixty years of the nineteenth century, and of eastern old southern Europeans, a majority of whom were Catholic or Jewish, in the decade before and after the turn of the twentieth. Political principles remained the core of national community. The new immigrants entered a process of ethnic-Americanization through participation in the political system, and, in so doing, established even more dearly the American civic culture as a basis of American unity.

The difference between 1990 (when Mr. Fuchs wrote, The American Kaleidoscope: Race, Ethnicity, and the Civic Culture) and now is that this time the acculturation occurred in reverse. Americans except on paper — the DREAMers — “established even more dearly the American civic culture as a basis of American unity” in a way that forced our language to adapt and their parents and themselves to be relieved of the smear “illegal.” The revolution was not just televised, it was also publicized . . . by the Associated Press.

So watch out State.  I’ve got my metaphorical bow and quiver, and I’m still shooting arcing arrows of justice at consular absolutism!

woman in knots.jpg

[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.

Savings.jpgFrugality, something second nature to our colonial forebears, is a trait we Americans seem to have forgotten.  We are profligate in our material acquisitions and in their disposition. (Witness the growing mountains of toxic electronic waste that are almost as hard to be rid of as spent nuclear fuel.)   Saving for a rainy day is not the meme it once was.

Similarly, in the immigration ecosphere, federal officials are just as wasteful of finite resources.  Over many years, administrators at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the State Department’s Visa Office have bungled the distribution of a most precious commodity under their charge — the annual allocation of immigrant visas. Unlike material waste, however, immigrant-visa quota numbers evaporate without a trace rather than linger in the environment.  Every September 30, all unused immigrant visas for that fiscal year disappear.  

Moreover, unless Congress intervenes, nothing can be done to recapture a green card lost because immigration bureaucrats gave it to the wrong person or otherwise failed to make it available in time to a deserving would-be immigrant.  

Unfortunately, “courts are not time machines” capable of undoing immigration-agency mistakes, as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week in Li v. Kerry. The three judges deciding the case found themselves powerless to help a group of plaintiffs born in China who claimed they were the victims of improper green card allocation by USCIS and the State Department.

Although these agencies reportedly violated a law requiring the conferral of immigrant visas on a first-come, first-served basis, they instead gave green cards due the plaintiffs to other foreign citizens.  The judges’ response:  Too bad, too sad — for Congress created no penalty or remedy that the courts could apply when immigration officials, however often, misallocate or waste green cards.  As Judge Reinhardt noted in his concurrence:

Plaintiffs have identified a significant problem with this country’s system of issuing immigrant visas. . . . [A]ccording to Plaintiffs, our nation’s immigration authorities wrongfully distributed to citizens of other nations over 40% of the available employment-based, third preference (“EB-3”) immigrant visas that, under the applicable statute, should have been made available to individuals from mainland China. These visas—numbering over 2,300—would have permitted applicants from China to live and work in this country as legal permanent residents and to start on a path to United States citizenship at the time intended by Congress. Instead, the government erroneously gave these visas to individuals from other countries, many of whom had been waiting far less time for the same type of visa than their Chinese counterparts. . . .

[W]hat is clear is that during 2008 and 2009 (and likely beyond), as a result of either errors or oversights on the part of the responsible agencies, the immigrant visa system did not function in a manner consistent with Congress’s intent in creating it. Although we dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint, our decision should not be read as condoning that unfortunate result.

If courts can’t fix the problem, then our elected leaders, having claimed repeatedly to be ultra-concerned about the interests of law-abiding immigrants who have played by the rules and patiently waited in the green-card line, must act.

The solution is not just for Congress to recapture lost green cards, as it did twice before in 2000 and 2005 when passing the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act and the REAL ID Act, and as the President has just suggested (“The [Administration’s] proposal seeks to eliminate existing backlogs in the family-sponsored immigration system by recapturing unused visas . . . “).

As part of comprehensive immigration reform, Congress should enact a law providing that unused quota-limited immigrant and nonimmigrant visas in any fiscal year should automatically roll over for use in later years. The law should also grant courts the power to craft equitable remedies for persons like the plaintiffs in Li v. Kerry, short-changed by erroneous actions or omissions of immigration bureaucrats, without taking away vested visa benefits already conferred on others.

This new law ought to be a no-brainer.  It grants not a single extra visa beyond the quota set by Congress.  Rather, it reaffirms that we are not just a nation of immigrants but a frugal people as well. 

arts_a_head2.jpgThe 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.

bomb_ww2_falling_sky_highangle.jpg

The New I-9:

Why Now When We Need Immigration Amnesty for Employers?

By Nicole Kersey and Angelo A. Paparelli

 

Irony was plentiful last week in Washington and around the country. 

One particularly hawkish Republican, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (who never met a war-on-terror strategy he disliked), glommed onto Senator Rand Paul’s filibustery droning against drones in protest of John Brennan’s nomination as new CIA director. 

Also last week President Obama met with religious leaders to promote “Commonsense [sic] Immigration Reform” as the “leaders expressed their concerns over the impact the broken immigration system is having on families throughout their congregations” — especially the ongoing deportation of persons eligible for legalization under comprehensive immigration reform (CIR).  

At about the same time, Jeb Bush, former Florida governor, out touting his new book Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution, “aimed at conservatives who might have a hard time embracing the increasingly important path-to-citizenship,” is accused of flip-flopping on immigration.

Last week also witnessed the release of two noteworthy publications on immigration.  

One, a long read in the National Journal exploring immigration-law dysfunction and irony in the restaurant industry, asked the rhetorically ironic question: “When did business owners become the bad guys of the Republican Party?” The article does a good job of describing our ironic process for verifying employment eligibility: 

Restaurant owners will say, when asked, that they don’t hire illegal immigrants. They also say they don’t know of anyone on their staff who is illegal. They are very likely telling the truth. Employers aren’t allowed to ask about a prospective employee’s country of origin—that would be discriminatory. They are simply required to keep copies of a new hire’s identification on file with an I-9 form, a dizzyingly bureaucratic document that generally does nothing but collect dust. A new employee can offer up many types of documents for the I-9, some of them archaic. Simple mistakes are made. The lunch rush may be starting. And document forgery is big business. (Emphasis added.)

The other piece is a Forbes op-ed with the ironic assertion that giving amnesty to the undocumented is insufficient and that our government also owes them an apology.

All this ironic behavior foreshadowed a bombshell of irony, a veritable immigration drone dropped on all American employers and newly hired employees, the release on March 8 of a new Form I-9 (Employment-Verification-Eligibility) by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).  The agency projects that the new I-9 — consisting of seven pages of instructions to complete two pages of the form itself (up from the current one-page form) — will impose an annual compliance burden of $1.2 billion on businesses and workers, not to mention a yearly cost to the federal government of $11.5 million. 

Why now?

With the government straitened by sequester and the prospect for CIR never better, why did USCIS choose last week to drop the I-9 bombshell on business and labor?

CIR could well involve the mandatory nationwide rollout of E-Verify and the elimination of the redundant I-9 verification process. Just as faith leaders, with CIR imminent, are calling for a nationwide moratorium on deportations, the business community and immigration advocates for the undocumented should protest the introduction of a costly new procedure that will only cause the “silent raids” and game of gotcha to continue and may well prove unnecessary.   Notwithstanding the government’s unpersuasive reasons for changing Form I-9, noted below, the timing, charitably speaking, is ironic.

Why did the form change?

The government has indicated (see #55 of the Appendix to Form I-9, Supporting Statement, available here) that the form was changed because:

–          The old form “expired.”

–          The expiration gave USCIS an opportunity to implement improvements to the form.

–          Improvements (according to USCIS) include:

–          Adding “helpful” fields such as the employee e-mail address and telephone number

–          Revising Section 1 to make it “easier to read and understand”

–          Adding an area for a 3D barcode to “promote the modernization of USCIS forms”

–          Giving employers more space

–          Making the instructions clearer and easier to understand

Whether this was truly the most opportune time to make changes to the form is highly questionable.  Given that any CIR bill passing this year is likely to include changes to the rules employers must follow when verifying employment eligibility, it is inexplicable for USCIS to have revised the I-9 now.  Changes to employment verification in all versions of CIR would inevitably result in the need for a new form or no form at all (just E-Verify with a fraud-proof employee ID card that all workers, including citizens, must present): so why not simply re-publish the same form with a new expiration date?  USCIS doesn’t say.

Did USCIS adequately respond to public comments?

Digging around at www.regulations.gov (type in Docket ID USCIS-2006-0068 to find all of the documents and comments related to the new form) leads to a 30+ page document in which the government responds to public comments.  While this suggests that USCIS actually read the comments, the agency’s response confirms that little serious consideration was given to the many comments proposing meaningful improvements to the form.  The majority of suggestions that USCIS implemented are minor and mostly stylistic, but still important and burdensome to implement. (See, e.g., the comments of ABIL, the Alliance of Business Immigration Lawyers, which like those of so many others the agency largely ignored.) 

What changed?

The new I-9 form is so much more complex that the government anticipates a 21-minute increase in the amount of time it will take to complete. See pages 8-9 of this document. As noted, the form is now two pages long, with seven pages of instructions.  The List of Acceptable Documents still occupies a single page.   Aside from formatting and stylistic changes, there are also substantive changes:

  • The instructions are significantly more detailed, including a number of “clarifying” items to help employers avoid mistakes.  
    • Instructions indicating that border commuters from Canada and Mexico may use foreign addresses in Section 1 (but that all other employees must use U.S. addresses).
    • Confirmation that P.O. Boxes are not acceptable.
    • A statement that the SSN (for employers who do not use E-Verify), e-mail, and telephone number fields, are optional.
    • Instructions regarding which foreign nationals must provide passport information in Section 1 (see below).
    • The addition of instructions for minors and disabled employees.
    • In-depth instructions relating to the use of receipts for lost, stolen, and damaged documents.
    • More detailed instructions relating to deadlines for form completion, review and recordation of document information, reverification, and photocopying documents.
    • The form has been updated to look more “official” and to include the DHS seal; this, in combination with certain formatting changes, may help employees take the form more seriously, giving them a better understanding that this is an official government form that is being signed under penalty of perjury.
    • New fields have been added for employees to record telephone numbers and e-mail addresses.  These fields are optional.  The government has indicated that many commenters praised the addition of these fields and that they may make it easier to contact employees in the event of E-Verify tentative nonconfirmations.
    • Terminology has changed in an attempt to make the form more user-friendly, reflect a better understanding of cultural norms (“Family Name”), and to make fields more gender-neutral (“Other Names Used” instead of Maiden Name). 
    • Fields have been added for certain foreign nationals to provide passport information in Section 1 of the form.  This relates to CBP’s plans for automation of the I-94 card.  Only those foreign nationals who obtained their I-94 documents upon entry to the U.S. (as opposed to having received a tear-off I-94 card as a part of a USCIS approval notice) should provide this data.  Others are instructed to write “N/A” in these fields.
    • The signature box for the employee has been improved to prevent employees from signing outside of the box.
    • In most cases, the instructions indicate that fields that do not apply to an employee (or where employees choose not to provide optional information) should be marked “N/A.”  While the government may find such instructions helpful, they actually create more opportunities for employers to find themselves making “mistakes” and worrying about possible fines for noncompliance with seemingly arbitrary rules.
    • “Alien #” has been changed to “Alien Registration Number/USCIS Number.”  For many, this causes confusion.  Let us make it clear:  the numbers are the same, but some government-issued documents use different terms to refer to the same number.
    • A 3D barcode box has been added to the form.  This is a mysterious box, as it is unclear what the government plans to do with it.  All indications suggest that the government may create a “smart” I-9 that employers can complete electronically, and that the barcode may allow for electronic reading of the form data.
    • A stop sign (yes, like the traffic sign) has been added between Section 1 and Section 2 to help prevent employees from completing Section 2 of the form.
    • Additional dedicated fields for recording “extra” List A documents have been added.  These fields may prove helpful to employers who previously struggled with the correct ways to document work authorization for foreign students, certain aliens authorized to work, and lawful permanent residents who have not yet received their green cards.  They may cause confusion, however, for others.  It is still not clear which document should be recorded first, second, or third.
    • The employer’s attestation statement has been changed somewhat.  It makes clearer to employers that they are not necessarily attesting to the employee’s start date (which is helpful when an employee is scheduled to start work in the future, preventing employers from concerns about attesting to something that has not yet occurred).
    • Section 3 has been changed to “Section 3, Reverification and Rehires” to make clear that there is no requirement that employers update the form for employee name changes.  Recording name changes may continue to be a best practice, but only if handled in such a way as to prevent document abuse claims (requesting documentation for I-9 purposes in connection with a name change may be risky).
    • The Lists of Acceptable Documents have been updated to make the rules regarding “restricted” Social Security cards clearer, specifically stating that employers must not accept cards that say “not  valid for employment,” “valid for work only with INS authorization,” or “valid for work only with DHS authorization.”

What should employers do?

USCIS has indicated that employers should begin using the new form immediately but has allowed a period of 60 days for employers to make the business-related adjustments necessary to begin use of the new form, effectively providing a grace period.

With that somewhat clunky guidance, we suggest that employers do the following:

Consider waiting to use the new form until you take time to:

  • Read and digest the revised M-274 Handbook for Employers, available here. 
  • Update your company policies and protocols to reflect changes to the form.
  • Provide training (preferably from a competent immigration attorney) to the individuals responsible for completing the form to ensure that they are aware of the changes and are equipped to properly implement them. 
  • Anticipate questions and issues that may arise.
  • Be ready to fix the foreseeable mistakes that are likely to arise.
  • Check with your electronic I-9 software provider (assuming you no longer use paper I-9s) to see that the new form is available, and ask your immigration attorney to review the new form in a test environment to ensure that it complies with all of the relevant rules and regulations.

* * *

fireworkssam.jpgSen. John McCain, whose somersaults on immigration are just as nimble and ironic as those of Jeb Bush, chastised Sen. Paul’s filibuster, calling it a “political stunt” meant to “fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms.” No one, however, can really say what USCIS, in its bureaucratic wisdom, meant to accomplish in dropping the new I-9, an even more dizzying and ditzy document than the current form.  

Perhaps, Sen. McCain will persuade his “Gang of Eight” compadres to rescue U.S. employers with an immigration amnesty on I-9 paperwork violations. Meantime, unimpressionable, all too jaundiced employers and their immigration lawyers, stoked by the new I-9, will muddle through the IRCA squeeze until Congress drops the irony and acts responsibly on CIR.

lawyer with section of law.jpg“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.

lawyer with red section of law.jpgSo 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.