Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for English Youth.jpg“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.

Thumbnail image for Angry British Youth.jpgBritons 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.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

idea light bulb.jpgWriting 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.

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

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

Money.jpgNot surprisingly, the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security, will hold a hearing July 26, 2011 on “The Economic Imperative for Enacting Immigration Reform” — something I’ve argued in a a slew of blog posts over many years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Man looking over wall.jpgAre we a trustworthy nation?  The world waits to see if the American government becomes a deadbeat on August 2, when the debt ceiling is hit.  Will the country break faith with its creditors?  Will it stiff Social Security recipients, the ill and disabled, fallen warriors and others whose lives or fortunes depend on Uncle Sam’s unflagging reliability.

The New York Times reported recently on a set of already broken American oaths. Many would-be “Special Immigrants” in Iraq who’ve worked for the U.S., are stranded there, facing death threats, living in stairwells, checking for car bombs underneath their vehicles, losing hope that their oft-promised yet long-delayed U.S. visas will ever arrive — green cards that Congress ordered to be fast-tracked — all the time chastising themselves for their gullible belief in America’s words.

A letter writer commenting on the Times story bewailed our “exceptional[ly]” roguish behavior: 

What have we become? Our word means nothing now. We break our word to Iraqi friends who helped us. Do we think that those whom we’ve left dangling in the wind will remain our friends? We want to break our word on debts we’ve already accrued.

Do we think that our creditors will continue to invest in us because we are “exceptional”? . . . I despair for a country that I see becoming . . . more removed from what I once thought were our high moral standards. And a country that does not keep its word.

As these despondent Iraqis have come to realize, institutional word-breaking is endemic within the U.S. immigration ecosystem. One small example tells a tale.

Consider the H-1B visa available to nonimmigrant workers in “specialty occupations” who possess at least a university sheepskin or its equivalent in the workaday world.  For those who prefer their learning via chart rather than text, click here; otherwise, read the following indented paragraphs:

This visa started life in 1952 as the H-1 for employees of “distinguished merit and ability” — a term later interpreted to refer to degreed or degree-equivalent “professionals.” In 1990, however, Congress rebranded the visa the H-1B and added an array of worker protections to be enforced by the Department of Labor (DOL), including a requirement that foreign citizens in H-1B status receive at least the going rate (the “prevailing wage”) in the local area. The process was designed to be speedy.  It would be “attestation-driven” with penalties applied only later if DOL were to investigate a complaint and find that an employer had violated the worker-protection duties of the law.  The employer’s attestation, in the form of promises that must be kept, is made under oath on a form known as a “Labor Condition Application,” or LCA. 

The DOL is obliged to “certify” an LCA unless it is “incomplete” or “obviously inaccurate.”  The employer then submits the certified LCA to an agency of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), together with a work-visa petition. USCIS then determines if the job and the worker qualify as “specialty occupations,” meaning that the job requires and the individual possesses that combination of theoretical and practical knowledge typically gained in a baccalaureate program or through equivalent work experience. Thus, the DOL protects H-1B workers, while USCIS confirms visa eligibility.  All was well with the world, or so we thought . . .

Because the prevailing wage is defined by geography (usually the wage considered prevalent in a particular metropolitan area), the DOL maintains listings of prevailing wages for locales around the country.  If an employer learns of an unforeseen business need to dispatch an H-1B worker to a worksite not listed in the LCA, the DOL requires the employer to file a new LCA and obtain DOL’s certification.

USCIS’s H-1B regulations, however, do not expressly require employers to submit a new or amended visa petition when the change merely involves a job relocation.  After all, there’d be no reason, in principle, why such a filing would be necessary, since the employee and the job itself would not have changed.  Both would still be the very same specialty occupations that USCIS had already screened and approved. 

To be sure, at one point in 1998, USCIS’s predecessor, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), had proposed a rule that an amended petition be filed for such job changes, but never took final action.  Instead, INS twice issued policy guidance, the Hogan and Aleinikoff memos, that each confirmed there is no need to report such changes unless the change invalidated the LCA.  The problem for INS and now USCIS, however, is that the DOL regulations do not prescribe any situations which invalidate an LCA.  Under DOL rules, an LCA may only be withdrawn by the employer or allowed to expire.

The view that a “geographic move” by an H-1B worker is not a material change (presumably because such a move does not by itself invalidate the associated LCA) was then confirmed by a senior USCIS official, Efren Hernandez III, Director of the agency’s Business and Trade Branch, in 2003 correspondence to the American Council for International Personnel.

Now comes the institutional word-breaking.  Recently, USCIS has begun to rule in numerous individual cases that the employer’s failure to amend the H-1B petition (something only the employer can do) and secure the agency’s okay for a worker’s change of job location means that the H-1B worker — merely by following her employer’s instructions to appear at a new worksite — has violated nonimmigrant status.  Failing to maintain status is no small matter.  It is a violation of law that can lead to the worker’s and her family’s removal from the United States and banishment for at least five years.  It can also cause the employer to be charged with continuing to employ the worker while knowing that the right to work has been terminated — a felony  — unless the employer immediately fires the worker. 

The bitter irony here is that by relying on the USCIS to keep its word the guileless, relocated worker (the supposed “beneficiary” of H-1B labor protections) and the trusting employer have been placed into a cauldron of hot immigration water. Also ironic is the notion that serious thought is given to “Rewarding Employers Who Play by the Rules,” as the Migration Policy Institute recommends, when the agency conferring the reward has systematically failed to publish intelligible rules of play.

How could this happen?  Four plausible theories come to mind:

  1. Failure to publish a final rule.  Legacy INS and its successor, USCIS, must be greater believers in “The Secret” (visualize intention and it will manifest) than in the notice-and-comment prescripts of the Administrative Procedures Act.  Just because the agencies float an idea publicly does not make it binding law.
  2. Ignorance of DOL regulations.  When Messrs. Hogan and Aleinikoff issued policy guidance, it seems no one bothered to study the DOL regulations.  Had they done so, they would have understood that LCAs can never be “invalidated.” Hence, they would not have referred to the “invalidation” of the LCA, but would have at least expressly stated in policy guidance (or better yet in a final regulation) that an H-1B worker’s change in work site from one metropolitan area to another requires the filing of an amended H-1B petition.
  3. Writing a letter does not make the letter binding law. USCIS and INS know the rules of procedure and precedent.  They should not have allowed the release of informal, non-binding letters that can only serve to mislead stakeholders.
  4. USCIS’s creeping mission.  As armies of USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security (“FDNS“) investigators and contractors performing “site visits” have appeared at business doorsteps nationwide, some learned that the H-1B worker whose file was to be audited had moved to another job site.  To an unschooled investigator (see # 2 above), this “suspicious” conduct looks like either fraud or a technical violation of the H-1B rules (even if the employer proffers an LCA covering the new worksite). 

None of these reasons justify indifference to the unpaid debts of promises unkept.  The poet, Robert Service, whose surname is what USCIS should be all about, said: “A promise made is a debt unpaid.” USCIS should heed the poet’s wisdom and put “Services” rightly back into its own name by promptly paying its debts to the stranded Iraqis endangered by American loyalty and by repairing the damage it has caused to relocated H-1B workers and their employers falsely accused of violating U.S. immigration law.

Gratiot near Mack in Detroit.jpgAs 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.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

peephole.jpgAs 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.

Gallagher smashing watermelon.jpgBack 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

elephants.jpgThe 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.