ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

All Blog Entries

  1. ICE Arrests Return to 2014 Obama Levels

    by , 05-19-2017 at 07:37 AM (Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal)
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement has issued statistics relating to enforcement during President Trump's first 100 days:

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – In the 100 days since President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Orders (EOs) regarding immigration enforcement priorities, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has arrested more than 41,000 individuals who are either known or suspected of being in the country illegally. This reflects an increase of 37.6 percent over the same period in 2016.

    Between Jan. 22 and April 29, 2017, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) deportation officers administratively arrested 41,318 individuals on civil immigration charges. Between Jan. 24 and April 30, 2016, ERO arrested 30,028.


    It should be noted that the current enforcement activities are a return to the levels seen under President Obama from 2014.

    Via NPR's Latino USA:

    Although the ICE arrests listed in the latest release reflect an increase from 2016, the 41,318 individuals arrested from January 22 to April 29, 2017 are more in line with statistics from 2014 and earlier:

    Updated 05-19-2017 at 07:51 AM by MKolken

  2. What are Mike Pence's Views on Immigration? Roger Algase

    At the time that Vice President Mike Pence was selected as Donald Trump's running mate in July, 2016, there was a good deal of focus on the fact that Pence's stance on mass deportation was significantly different from that of Trump's.

    Newsweek quoted the following from a speech that Pence gave at the Heritage Foundation in 2006, which strongly contrasted with the emphasis that Trump and AG Jeff Sessions have been placing since Trump's inauguration on putting every unauthorized immigrant in the United States in fear of deportation, regardless of whether or not they have ever been charged with a crime or otherwise pose any threat to the peace and safety of America:

    "It is not logistically possible to round up 12 million illegal aliens. We know that this idea of putting everybody on buses and conducting a mass deportation is a non-starter."

    http://www.newsweek.com/pence-trump-immigration-480983

    This statement, and a related proposal by Pence to grant legal status (not citizenship) to immigrants who "self-deport" briefly before coming right back to work as guest workers in the jobs they has been working in illegally did not exactly endear Pence to hard line anti-immigrant groups such as FAIR, which issued a July 2016 statement that it had some "concerns" about Pence's stands on immigration.

    http://www.fairus.org/legislation/fe...n-of-gov-pence

    This is not to say by any means that FAIR found nothing to like about some of Pence's immigration positions. For example, FAIR's statement commended his (unsuccessful) court battle to keep Syrian refugees from resettling in his state as governor of Indiana.

    FAIR was also happy with Pence's vote as a Congressman against the DREAM Act, and with his opposition as governor to President Obama's DACA program, which FAIR called an illegal use of executive power to grant amnesty to "millions of illegal aliens".

    FAIR'S statement did not mention Pence's strong condemnation of Trump's world-wide Muslim ban proposal in December, 2015. In a tweet, Pence denounced that proposal as "offensive and unconstitutional".

    http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/us-...ld-8378977.php

    Of course, as many have pointed out, even if some of Pence's proposals on immigration are more reasonable and less extreme than the Trumps/Sessions agenda which now holds sway in Washington, Pence, as Vice President, has no choice but to support Trump's agenda of mass deportation of mainly Latino immigrants and ban from entry to the US by 100 million Muslim immigrants from six countries (or as many of these as the federal courts may allow him to get away with).

    Therefore, we can expect Pence to be a loyal supporter of Trump's immigration agenda for as long as Trump is president.

    However long that might be.

    http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...-investigation

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...rumps-troubles

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law

    Updated 05-18-2017 at 08:12 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

  3. Illogical Fears Generate Illogical Policies: Notes from the Center for Immigration Studies “Asylum Fraud” Panel

    This article is by Josh Rigney, the Legal Services Program Manager at the Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition International (TASSC). Josh has worked with survivors of torture seeking asylum since May 2012. He holds a Master’s in International Relations and a Juris Doctor from American University. He is a member of the Virginia State Bar. The opinions expressed in this article are his alone, and do not represent the opinions of TASSC.
    Taking asylum policy advice from CIS is like taking urban planning advice from Godzilla.
    On May 10, I attended a panel discussion organized by the Center for Immigration Studies (“CIS”) and titled Asylum Fraud and National Security. Described on the CIS website as a discussion on the threat posed by “the vetting – or the lack thereof” of asylum applicants in the U.S., the panel included three speakers who, at least on paper, appeared to have impressive expertise on immigration issues. Two of the speakers, Andrew Arthur and Mark Metcalf, formally served as immigration judges in Pennsylvania and Florida, respectively. The final panelist, Todd Bensman, is a long-time journalist with degrees in journalism and homeland security studies.

    CIS’s tagline is “Low-immigration, Pro-immigrant,” and it bills itself as “an independent, non-partisan, non-profit, research organization.” However, CIS is reliably biased, and produces shoddy “research” prone to support any policy that will decrease all immigration to the United States, regardless of the heartless nature of the policy. For example, a recent Washington Post article quoted Executive Director Mark Krikorian speaking in favor of limiting immigration by breeding fear of U.S. immigration policies amongst potential immigrants. Krikorian stated that only if Trump follows through on the fear inspired by his pronouncements on immigration will CIS’s preferred immigration levels be realized.


    As an immigration attorney who works with survivors of torture seeking asylum, turning the asylum process into a national security witch hunt would obviously impact those whom I serve. But that is not the only reason the panel’s viewpoints should matter to the broader asylum-seeker community and its supporters. As a recent New York Times article stressed, CIS – designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center – and other anti-immigrant hard-liners now have the ear of the White House and congressional policy makers on immigration.


    The panelists stressed several points during the event. First, immigrants are a threat to the safety of the United States. Second, while refugees pose a danger, asylum seekers are an even greater threat to U.S. national security. Third, fraud is rampant among asylum seekers. Therefore, the panelists agreed that U.S. policymakers must make it harder for everyone to receive asylum, whether or not a particular individual has a legitimate claim.


    Immigrants are Dangerous


    To convince the small crowd at the event that all immigrants – asylum-seeking or otherwise – pose a threat to the safety of the United States, each panelist took turns describing his favorite scary immigrant story. Andrew Arthur spoke about Ramzi Yousef, one of the perpetrators of the first attack on the World Trade Center in New York City in 1993. Bensman spoke of Pakistanis with potential terrorist ties crossing the southern border with the help of a smuggler named Rakhi Gauchan. He stressed that Gauchan believed one of the Pakistanis was a terrorist, and Bensman stated that this person later received asylum.


    Of course, relying on scattered anecdotes to draw broad conclusions about all asylum seekers does not make for sound policy. For example, Bensman did not mention whether he actually knew the Pakistani was a terrorist. Indeed, according to his own master’s thesis, American investigators never determined whether Gauchan’s terrorism suspicions were accurate.


    As with any policy issue, harping on the inevitable few bad apples does not support throwing all of them out. Overall statistical trends must be analyzed, particularly when the goal is to punish an entire group of people, and particularly one as large as asylum seekers. In the first three months of 2017 alone, 40,899 people filed asylum claims with the Asylum Office. The handful of cases the panelists cited in their comments cannot justify making the asylum process more difficult for all of these people.


    What Do the Numbers Tell Us?


    A study published by the Cato Institute, an organization founded by one of the Republican mega-donor Koch brothers, determined that the chance that you will be killed by a foreign-born terrorist who is in the U.S. because of a grant of asylum is 1 in 2.7 billion. Between 1975 and 2015, over 700,000 people were granted asylum in the United States. Of those, just 4 have been “convicted of planning or committing a terrorist attack on U.S. soil…”


    So what statistics did the expert panel use to support their assertion that all asylum seekers are dangerous? In the only notable mention of actual numbers, Mark Metcalf provided data released by EOIR on the number of immigrants with pending court cases who failed to show up in court for their hearings. However, at no point did he provide any breakdown of the numbers for asylum seekers; nor did he explain how failing to show up for a court hearing is equivalent to committing asylum fraud or posing a threat to U.S. national security.


    One of the panelists, in a nod to those in the crowd who felt the U.S. is too generous to immigrants, mentioned that the U.S. “accepts more refugees than the rest of the world combined.” For the record, the U.S., a country of more than 325 million people, resettled 66,500 out of the 107,100 total refugees resettled by all countries in 2015. Canada, a country with a population of approximately 36 million people, resettled 20,000 refugees. Furthermore, Turkey (2.5 million), Pakistan (1.6 million), and Lebanon (1.1 million) all host over a million refugees each. For asylum seekers, the United States received only slightly more applications (172,700) than Sweden (156,400), a country of only 10 million people. Meanwhile, Germany (population of 81 million) received 441,900 asylum applications.


    The point is that while the U.S. does offer refuge to a significant number of people fleeing persecution every year, that does not justify the draconian policy recommendations supported by the panelists.


    Asylum Seekers vs. Refugees


    I can actually agree with some of the panel’s comments comparing the relative threat posed by refugees against the threat posed by asylum seekers. Arthur stressed that the primary difference between refugees and asylum seekers is that refugees are fully vetted prior to ever setting foot in the United States. In contrast, asylum seekers make it to U.S. territory, then seek protection while waiting for their asylum claim to be granted or rejected. Depending on the court or asylum office with jurisdiction over the applicant’s claim, that process can take many years (one survivor from my organization recently received asylum after a ten-year struggle). During this time, asylum seekers remain in the United States without undergoing security checks like those that refugees must pass before entering.


    Of course, none of this really matters unless you accept the idea that immigrants are truly a threat – which takes us back to the previous point. Yes, in theory, asylum seekers have the potential to pose a greater security threat than refugees – but that threat is already extremely low to begin with. In actuality, objective evidence that asylum seekers as a group are a threat to U.S. national security is weak at best.


    For example, the panelists claimed again and again that fraud is rampant in the asylum system – relying, again, on a handful of selected stories. As evidence of potential security threats, they correctly pointed out that the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice do not conduct regular system-wide fraud risk assessments. But without such assessments, how did the panelists conclude that fraud is rampant?


    “Pro-immigrant”


    At times, at least one panelist expressed sympathy for the plight of the tens of thousands of asylum seekers with legitimate claims. For example, Arthur correctly stated that each fraudulent asylum application filed by someone without a claim will cause further delay in the process for another asylum seeker with a legitimate claim. He also paid lip service to the reality that the United States is a nation built by immigrants. Overall, however, the panelists expressed support for several policies that would have a disastrous impact on all asylum applicants seeking safety in the U.S.


    Arthur promoted the use of detention for asylum seekers, stating that the longer a person is detained, the less likely that person is to obtain asylum fraudulently. He failed to mention the devastating psychological repercussions detention will have for the thousands of torture and trauma survivors—many of whom are already suffering from PTSD—who would inevitably be thrown into such facilities.


    Arthur also declared that any person that transits through another country on the way to the United States lacks true fear, but instead seeks economic opportunity. In response, Mark Krikorian, in the role of moderator, asked if the U.S. should categorically deny asylum to anyone that transited through another country. Arthur suggested that could be achieved through legislation to change the eligibility requirements for asylum.


    Bensman suggested that only when we can guarantee the identity of people through unimpeachable ID documents should we allow them to seek asylum. But in reality, the lack of such documentation often stems from the chaos that forced asylum seekers to seek safety in the first place. In other words, his suggestion would bar those in greatest need of protection from accessing the asylum system at all.


    Finally, all the panelists suggested that DHS and DOJ commit significant resources to assess the fraud risk in the asylum system.


    Ignoring the Elephant in the Room


    Notably absent from these policy recommendations was the hiring of additional Immigration Judges and Asylum Officers. Assuming, for the moment, that asylum seekers waiting in the asylum backlog are a threat to U.S. national security, I can’t help but wonder why the panelists never suggested the only solution that would make it easier for immigration officials to spot fraudulent asylum claims.


    Mark Metcalf tacitly recognized this concept when he highlighted that good cross-examination, either by a prosecutor or an Immigration Judge, can expose fake asylum claims. The same principle holds for intelligent questioning by Asylum Officers in asylum interviews. With the current backlog of nearly 600,000 cases at the Immigration Courts, and another 250,000 claims before the Asylum Offices, each official responsible for testing the credibility of these claims is heavily overburdened. Relieving that burden by hiring more Immigration Judges and Asylum Officers will help these officials spot the fraudulent asylum claims that do cross their paths.


    This solution can lessen the actual problem of immense backlogs and long waits for people seeking asylum. As an added bonus, it would simultaneously address the speculative and over-exaggerated threats that the panelists identified, without denying a path to safety for tens of thousands of people fleeing persecution.

    Originally posted on the Asylumist: www.Asylumist.com.
    Tags: asylum, cis Add / Edit Tags
  4. Restaurant Owner Pleads Guilty to Harboring Undocumented Workers

    By: Bruce Buchanan, Sebelist Buchanan Law PLLC

    Attachment 1189

    A Pittsburgh restaurant owner has pled guilty to one count of harboring undocumented workers. In December 2016, Xing Zheng Lin, aka Steve Lin, was indicted for two counts of harboring and transporting undocumented workers. The charges were based on an investigation, by the FBI and Homeland Security Investigations, which showed for about five years, starting in 2009, Lin harbored and transported undocumented workers, who were employed at Saga Restaurant in Monroeville, Robinson, and Bethel Park, Pennsylvania.

    Lin is awaiting sentencing. The law provides for a maximum total sentence of not more than 10 years in prison for each alien, a fine of $250,000 for each alien or both. Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the actual sentence imposed would be based upon the seriousness of the offense and the prior criminal history, if any, of the defendant.
  5. Letters of the Week: May 15 - May 21

Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: