Archive for the ‘Immigration, General’ Category.

The Queer Community’s Road to Equality

shutterstock_153955259In June 2013, SCOTUS helped turn a page in the queer community’s struggle for civil rights. By striking a pertinent portion of the indefensible Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the Justices cleared the way for LGBTQ citizens of this country to strive for full equality under the law – in all 50 states.  Almost two years later, it’s time to take stock of the landscape.

Within the immigration world there is no question that the state of our move toward equality has strengthened. Sadly however, full equality is not yet at hand.  The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and discriminatory laws and practices at both the federal and state levels are responsible for denying our basic Constitutional rights, those of liberty and justice.

Right now many same sex spouses of US citizens who fled their respective countries out of fear of persecution and subsequently entered the U.S. without authorization have to travel back to the same countries they were harmed in order to obtain a waiver for their inadmissibility even though they have an approved Petition for Alien Relative filed by their US citizen spouses.  These waivers (I-601A’s) even if approved by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are subject to further scrutiny by the Department of State (DOS) visa officers.  This review may take many weeks or even months which is often a nightmare for the visa applicant who had to leave his/her American family behind and are then faced with days, weeks, or months in a country with a homophobic culture.

In Mexico for instance – the U.S. Consulate in Cuidad Juarez is requiring the Acid Fast Bacilli (AFB) TB test for anyone with HIV, which takes between 6-8 weeks to complete and read. This requirement is outrageous on so many levels.  The applicant will potentially delay valuable medical care for his/her HIV status while being subjected to severe stress living in a country that is violent towards his identity as a gay individual.

Some DOS Visa Officers fail to comply with their own guidelines and regulations.  They expose same sex spouses’ identities or their finances by failing to discreetly adjudicate their applications.  There are many reports of bias, pointed questioning and unnecessary requests for evidence of bonafides of the relationship.  In a recent case out of Ecuador, a fiancé visa applicant was asked to provide joint documents such as U.S. bank accounts and property deeds and birth certificates of children with the visa applicant’s name on them, as well as a detailed explanation as to why he had never been to the U.S. Special thanks go to AILA attorneys Noemi Masliah, Chair of the LGBT Working Group and a member of the DOS Liaison Committee, and Daniel Parisi, another member of the DOS Liaison Committee for offering immediate help in resolving this particular case.

Other issues such as parentage in the LGBTQ community may now be matters of first impression.  Just recently a same sex couple in Tennessee had to fight a court battle to have their names on their biological child’s birth certificate just because the state failed to recognize their marriage held in New York.  Surrogacy pregnancy, both in the US and abroad, also raises very interesting legal questions as to parental and also derivative citizenship rights in various states.

Our movement for social justice is unstoppable and indeed history is on our side.  Before the end of the current SCOTUS term, we expect a decision on our constitutional right to marriage in all 50 states.  I’m both optimistic and anxious as we inch closer to that date – and am equally sober to the fact that our fight for equality, particularly within immigration law and policy, will continue regardless of the ruling by SCOTUS.

Written by Ally Bolour, Member, AILA Media Advocacy Committee

148,000 Missed Opportunities

shutterstock_148806083I’m just now fully coming out of the chaotic, hectic darkness that has clouded every H-1B season for the past many years.  Once again, I find myself struggling with “Immigration PTSD”  – Post Traumatic Submission Disorder.  The cause of this syndrome is two-fold.  First, I live with the dreaded anticipation that the number of submissions will be such that not even a fair percentage of my submitted applications have a realistic hope of selection.  To make matters worse, I live in fear that, heaven forbid, I have made a minute non-material error, which will cause even a selected application to fail. Sadly, my fears are once again well founded.

This year the USCIS received 233,000 applications for 85,000 available slots.  Thus, 148,000, almost two thirds, of the petitions received in the first five days of April will be rejected out of hand without any review. A lottery has been held and the unpicked petitions so painstakingly pulled together by immigration lawyers, with help from innumerable paralegals and legal assistants, and dutifully delivered on time by FedEx, UPS, or the U.S. Postal Service, will be returned.

The data shows that the number of submissions is a direct reflection of the fact that American employers desperately need the workers for whom they petitioned. Simply, they need these foreign workers to help create products, technology, ideas, and innovations.  No employer in its right mind would go through this process or angst if they did not.  Further, as American Immigration Council Executive Director Ben Johnson recently testified in a  Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, those high-skilled immigrant workers have been shown to go on to create even more jobs, thus building our economy and contributing to the success of us all, not just the company for which they work.  Hopes will be dashed, business plans will crumble, and instead of surging forward with the right personnel, companies will be stalled again for another year while they try to make do.

Finally, and perhaps one of the greatest sources of stress for those trying to assist employers and better the economy, is that hopes will be dashed not just because the numbers alone do not and cannot possibly account for the number of workers needed, but because the process is one that does not allow for one, literally not one, error.

Our immigration system is broken, not just by its antiquated numerical limitations but also by its process.  A missed checkbox is grounds for denial, and although denial is not mandated for such errors, it is permitted.  Unfortunately, permission has become a license to kill an otherwise clearly approvable petition.

Transpose a number in a check so that it is off even by only one dollar and USCIS will reject the application. Tax filings, patent applications, and almost any other type of application can be amended.  While the law does not bar corrections to immigration applications, that opportunity is simply not afforded to filers. To err is human, except in the context of immigration, at least for applicants.

It doesn’t have to be like this. Congress could tie the H-1B visa cap to actual market demand. It’s not a crazy concept. When we had an economic downturn, demand fell, so the H-1B visa cap was reached in months instead of days. Why can’t we have the same sort of rising cap when our economy is doing well?  Similarly, our system does not mandate strict liability or compliance.  We do not need Congressional action to dictate that leniency, where permitted, be provided. The laws, common and good economic sense, do that already.  The H-1B visa system is long overdue for an overhaul – Congress should get started today.

Written by Leslie A. Holman, AILA President

How One Life Was Changed at NDA

AILA_Keychain_FrontNational Day of Action (what used to be called “Lobby Day”) is an AILA tradition that goes back a number of years. I’ve participated many times, and each time it is different. Each time I come out heartened by some Congressional visits, disheartened by others, but always feeling a part of something greater and ready to keep fighting for my clients.

One of my clients was directly impacted by my NDA participation a few years ago and I wanted to share that story.

It was back in 2010 when our group met with Rep. Velasquez. It’s unusual to get an appointment with your actual legislator, so most often we meet with one of the legislative aides. But this time it was with the Congressional Member herself.

It was just after the terrible Haiti earthquake.  I had a client, a United States Citizen dad, here in New York who was trying to get his newborn child to the US.  The child was born and she and mom were released from the hospital one day before the quake hit; the hospital collapsed in the quake the next day.

We had been trying for months to get the birth certificate or some other proof to the US Embassy in Haiti so that we could get the visa issued. Obviously, the embassy was swamped with requests and work related to the quake, which we understood, but there were some incredibly frustrating delays and run around with the Post that lasted for months.

While we were talking to Rep. Velasquez at our meeting, educating her about immigration reform and how important it is to fix the broken system, I happened to mention this case as an example.  Suddenly her eyes lit up. She jumped out of her chair and called her aide into our meeting and told him to get my name and number and that she would see what she could do. As soon as I got back to the office the next day I gave the aide the details and file number.

The child was in New York a month later.

This sort of result is the exception, not the rule. These meetings are not to ask for help for individual cases, but to educate and advocate on immigration issues. But I used a concrete example in this meeting to illustrate a point, and got this amazing and exceptional result. No one should come to NDA solely for this purpose, but what a story!

So despite the deadlock in Congress, I will be at NDA this year again, as usual. Because you never know when a comment you make in a meeting can inform a congressional hearing question, even months later. You never know how sharing your card with a legislative assistant can lead to being asked for information when a bill is being drafted. And you never know how an offhand comment can reunite a family.

Written by George Akst, NDA Attendee and AILA Member

**************************************************************

To register for NDA 2015, go to Agora and sign upit’s free!

Hope and Disappointment in Dilley

Dilley_300x240I spent last week at the detention center in Dilley, Texas, volunteering to help mothers and children detained there. Having previously experienced the harsh conditions at the facility in Artesia, I was immediately struck by the visible differences here in Dilley. Any former Artesia volunteer will do a double-take at the sight of a toddler-sized slide in the visitation trailer, or a guard bringing coffee to a mom waiting to meet with her attorney. At the beginning of the week I thought the air of hope I felt in the visitation trailer had to do with better conditions in the facility.

I was wrong. Although it’s a slightly “prettier” jail than Artesia was, it’s still a jail, and the women and children detained there feel this deeply. The air of hope I felt in the beginning had nothing to do with having toys for the kids in the play area. Rather, news of the RILR victory had spread like wildfire in the facility over the weekend, and the women thought they might have a chance at bonds their families could afford to pay. At some point on Thursday, these hopes were dashed as women were herded en masse in to the courtrooms, where ICE officers handed many of them paperwork for either a $7,500 or $10,000 bond, with no explanation of how they had decided on such a high number.

The atmosphere in the facility completely changed after this. The women we saw were despondent and confused, knowing their families couldn’t pay this amount, and wondering why such a high price should be put on their heads. One of the few “individualized determinations” we saw was in the case of a woman who fled with her toddler after receiving death threats from a gang. A week after arriving in Dilley, she found out that the gang had made good on their threats, killing the 6-year-old daughter she had been forced to leave behind. She was still in the facility when I left – her family couldn’t afford to pay the $4,000 bond ICE had set for her.

I know there’s a lot of work to be done building this project, and it seems daunting at the outset. But I also know that we need to be there, and we need to build a sense of trust and commitment between the volunteers and the detainees just like we did in Artesia.

It’s time to re-mobilize – these kids and moms need us to fight for them.

Written by Sarah Corstange, AILA Member and Dilley Volunteer

******

If you are an AILA member who wants to volunteer at a family detention center, please go to AILA’s Dilley Pro Bono Project page or feel free to contact Maheen Taqui at mtaqui@aila.org – we could really use your help.

To watch videos of the volunteers at Artesia and elsewhere sharing their experiences, go to this playlist on AILA National’s YouTube page. To see all the blog posts about this issue select Family Detention as the category on the right side of this page.

From Leave It to Beaver to Modern Family

shutterstock_152193854The days when one spouse remained at home and the other went to work aren’t the norm any longer in our society.  Although there may still be some households where only one spouse works outside the home, in many cases having two working spouses is one of the requirements of the economic and societal reality within which we now live.

While the Cleavers exemplified the idealized middle-class suburban family of the mid-20th century, times have changed, and now Modern Family brings us the experiences of diverse family units.

Decades of changes within our own culture and values have led to the recognition of both spouses’ talents outside the home.  The traditional roles of domestic spouses and working spouses are no longer rigid models in a family and with two incomes the overall financial stability and security of many family units has improved.

Our country’s H-1B visa program however, lagged behind these realities until last week when the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) finally announced a visa rule revision that will allow spouses of some highly skilled immigrants to apply to work in the United States.  This rule recognizes the contributions spouses of foreign workers can also bring to our society and economy.

USCIS director Leon Rodriguez noted that “[spouses] are, in many cases, in their own right highly skilled workers,” and that “many families struggled financially when a spouse couldn’t work, and in some cases returned to their country.”

More importantly this rule revision will have a tremendous effect on immigrant women because a large number of the H-1B spouses are, in fact, women.  Women who may have completed advanced degrees in their home country and are well qualified to hold jobs in their own professions, but who until now have been barred from doing so. They have had to make a choice, either to pursue their own career or focus entirely on their spouse’s while he was employed on an H-1B visa.  The Administration’s willingness to recognize these inequities for immigrant women living in our society and the agency’s action in revising this arcane rule is another step forward in remedying the complex and outdated rules in our current immigration system.

The announcement and the impact the revision of the rule will have on many foreign workers and their families are welcomed, but this is only a limited remedy.  It is important to note that the new authorization doesn’t apply to the spouses of all H-1B visa holders. The regulations only cover those whose H-1B partners are seeking permanent legal residency and for whom the agency has already approved an employer petition to start the process.

Our immigration system remains a product of the past century and hinders our country’s ability to remain competitive in this global economy.  The efforts by this Administration to bring relief to companies seeking to keep or hire talent should be a catalyst for Congress to get to work on further reform of our immigration laws.

Competitiveness increases profits and strengthens our economy.  Research shows that immigrants complement American workers.   It is time to leave the Cleavers to our history and modernize our immigration laws to chart the economic future of our nation and the financial stability of our families.

Written by Annaluisa Padilla, AILA Second Vice President

It’s Our Security, Stupid

shutterstock_126785846I find myself in the unusual position today of agreeing with Rep. Peter King (R-NY) in his NY Daily News Op-Ed Wednesday (Guest column: Brooklyn terror suspects show it’s insane to not approve money for Homeland Security ) where he argues that security of the United States is too important and that funding the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is essential to protect our country.  He is right.  As we sit back and watch the latest drama unfold on Capitol Hill, one cannot but wonder why funding our national security would ever become a political issue.  Clearly it is in our nation’s best interest to fund the agency which is responsible for protecting the homeland from terrorist attack.   Now more than ever Congress should recognize that terrorism can happen in the West and is being called upon by radical leaders abroad.  All they need to do is look at our friends in France, Holland and Canada to see recent examples of attacks on innocent civilians and local police.  Moreover, recently the terrorist group Al Shabaab called for an attack on American civilians in shopping malls such as the Mall of America.  Rep. King points out the need to fund DHS based on the three individuals who were arrested recently in New York City who planned to travel to Syria to fight with ISIL or attack American civilians in New York if they could not reach Syria.  Rep. King is properly putting the people of New York and America ahead of a political agenda.

Regardless of one’s position on the legality of President Obama’s Executive Action memos or immigration in general, we should all be able to agree as Americans that the safety and protection of the people of the United States is a priority regardless of political party.  As I write this, Congress is on a path to fund DHS for only three weeks.  It is unfortunate that members of Congress continue to gamble with national security and our lives to advance individual political gain.  We can only sit back and grit our teeth as the critical votes start to line up before a dysfunctional Congress that is putting party politics before American lives and wellbeing.

Rep. King correctly notes that “you don’t have to be a genius to carry out a terrorist attack.”  You also don’t have to be a genius to understand that national security and the safety of America is more important than petty partisan politics.  Rep. King gets it. Unfortunately, it seems there are not enough members of Congress who want to stand up and represent the American people rather than their individual parties and anti-immigration politics.  We can only hope their selfish gamble doesn’t cost American lives.

Written by Matthew Maiona, Member, AILA Media Advocacy Committee

The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance

shutterstock_250501696Or (Thank You Sean Penn for Starting the Immigration Discussion at the Oscars)

I love film.  I love the Oscars.  To me, the Oscars, unlike the other award shows, represent the best of all aspects of the highly competitive, brilliant, and inspiring film industry.  As an immigration lawyer with an artistic client base, I am always interested to see nominees from around the world coming together in Los Angeles to celebrate the universal brilliance of film at the Academy Awards.  This year in the Dolby Theatre we again heard the talented winners accept their Oscar statues with many accents for their work on films written, produced, filmed, edited, and distributed in the U.S. and internationally.  We saw dual nationals, Julianne Moore (U.S./U.K.) win best actress for the New York based Still Alice, Mathilde Bonnefoy (France/U.S.), for best documentary, Citizenfour, Canadian Craig Mann and Brit Ben Wilkins accept the award for sound mixing for the New York based Whiplash and the international team of The Grand Budapest Hotel, with winners from Italy, France, and the U.K. garnering artistic awards in costume design, original score, and hair and makeup.

Unique this year, however, was the truly international compilation of the all American story of Birdman:  Or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) which was awarded best picture, cinematography, directing and original screenplay.  Birdman is all American in that its subject is the U.S. entertainment industry, recognized the world over as “Broadway” for the best of theatre and “Hollywood” for film, based on the short story by American treasure, Raymond Carver and shot entirely in New York City.  The Birdman team, including an Argentine writer, Mexican director, producer and cinematographer and British actors, along with their American colleagues, created the best film of the year as judged by their peers.  This achievement is in itself the American dream.  As Alejandro González Iñárritu, multiple Oscar winner for Birdman, so elegantly stated:

“I want to dedicate this award for my fellow Mexicans…the ones that live in this country who are part of the latest generation of immigrants in this country, I just pray that they can be treated with the same dignity and the respect of the ones who came before and (built) this incredible immigrant nation.” (Associated Press)

Yes, immigrants did build this country; they also built our entertainment industry, seen as the best, or at least the most influential, in the world.  Indeed, many of our most legendary directors including Frances Ford Coppola, Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorsese, Mel Brooks, Robert Zemeckis, and John Houston are sons or grandsons of the immigrants of the early 20th century – those huddled masses who in their own time fought discrimination, marginalization and language barriers, but who, unlike today’s immigrants were welcomed by laws which enabled their integration into the U.S.   The current state of our immigration laws, with the unreasonable barriers and limitations on work visas and green cards, the limitations for those who enter without inspection and the crippling three and ten year bars is holding back those who come to this country in search of the American dream and depriving their children of the same opportunities afforded to the children of the immigrants of the early 20th century.  I don’t know how Alejandro González Iñárritu came to the U.S. or if he has a green card, as possibly inappropriately (or even ignorantly) stated by Best Picture presenter, Sean Penn, but he is clearly extraordinary, and accordingly would most likely be eligible for a work visa or green card under our current immigration laws.

While welcoming the best and brightest can be beneficial to the U.S., let’s not forget all those who came before us who were not extraordinary in their fields – those hard working young men and women seeking a better life; those whose children and grandchildren grew up to be legends of the film industry.  A brilliant director/screenwriter/ film producer/composer/immigrant has challenged us to look at the American dream in both his Academy award winning film and his acceptance speech; he has challenged lawmakers to enact laws that treat immigrants with dignity and respect worthy of this incredible nation.

I urge Congress to take up this challenge, to educate themselves about these important issues instead of repeating rhetoric aimed at creating more confusion and condemnation rather than educated debate and effective change. Our country has prospered in large part because of the contribution of immigrants and their children – those who had the next big great idea – whether it be in the arts, business, economics, finance, law or any other field. That is inspiring to me, just like the Oscars.

 Written by Anastasia Tonello, AILA National Treasurer

Traitor? Not So Much.

shutterstock_171828821I was called a traitor, twice, in less than an hour today.

It’s not the first time in my role as AILA’s Executive Director that I’ve been called that, but it still offends. The fallacies about immigrants, about the undocumented, about our borders and our government’s actions continue to linger.

This time it was on C-Span’s Washington Journal. The callers were cut off when they spit out the accusation, but I tried to honestly answer their questions while inside I was yelling “HOW DARE YOU?”

I’m not a traitor when I ask our Congress to pass good immigration reform, actual legislation that would fix the broken system and address the undocumented already here.

I’m not a traitor when I acknowledge that the millions of people already in the United States, already building lives here, paying taxes and working, need a way out of the shadows, away from fear, and into the light.

I’m not a traitor when I read studies modeling the economic impact of giving work authorization to those who apply for DACA and DAPA that show it will in fact help the economy.

I’m not a traitor when I think having people come forward for DACA and DAPA will actually help our country prioritize enforcement on those who actually pose a potential risk to public safety.

I’m not a traitor when I think that a U.S. citizen child is better off with a loving, caring mother and father than to have her family torn apart and her parents deported, like Diane Guererro described.

I’m not a traitor when I believe that our country at its best will welcome those striving for the American dream, no matter their race or color, instead of spitting on them.

I’m not a traitor when I explain that a federal judge’s decision was the wrong one, based on many of the same spurious anti-immigrant claims that those callers espoused.

I’m not a traitor when I still revere what the Statue of Liberty stands for, when I acknowledge that many of my own ancestors came to this country and benefitted from our Constitution’s rights for those who reside here.

I’m not a traitor when I can put myself into someone else’s shoes, a desperate mom or a terrorized child, who seeks asylum in this land of the free.

And I’m certainly not a traitor when I agree to answer questions, honestly and with as much legal expertise as possible, to anyone who calls in on a national news channel. I just get called one then.

Written by Crystal Williams, AILA Executive Director

In Defense of Consular Officers

shutterstock_123147769For over 25 years, I have been living and working abroad helping noncitizens secure family, work and other types of visas to the United States.  As a specialist in consular law and procedure, I’ve had the honor and the privilege to deal with American consular officers at posts around the world, and have spent countless hours studying and writing about Volume 9 of the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM), the authoritative guidance governing every consular officer’s process for issuance of a U.S. visa.  Like other immigration lawyers, I am closely following the case of Kerry v. Din pending before the Supreme Court (argument scheduled for Monday February 23).  At stake in that case: whether the courtroom door is open to an American citizen asking for a minimal explanation about the denial of her spouse’s visa on what the government asserts are terrorism grounds.

The premise of the Solicitor General’s (SG) argument is that the issuance or denial of visas is a discretionary function carried out by consular officers. The fallacy of that description, however, is that it’s outdated.  It ignores the reality of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 – Congress’ response to the 9/11 tragedies – which gives the then-newly-created Department of Homeland Security (DHS) an overarching role in the visa process, especially when it comes to denials based on security grounds.  (For more information on DHS’s predominant role in the visa process, see here, here, and here).

It is DHS’ role in database-driven national-security determinations, like the one at issue in Din, that’s explained in an amici brief by a group of former consular officers supporting Ms. Din.  For the government to claim that courts shouldn’t review “discretionary” visa decisions by consular officers begs the case’s key question, because those decisions are often made based not on the consular officer’s discretion but rather on DHS inadmissibility findings entered into national-security/terrorism databases and watchlists.

A strange thing happened shortly after the compelling amici brief by the former consular officers was filed. In the brief period between filing of the amici brief and the date for filing of the SG’s reply brief, the section of the FAM relating to the duty of consular officers in cases involving DHS findings of inadmissibility on a national-security/terrorism database or watchlist was suddenly changed.

Previously, the guidance to consular officers had stated:

Except in cases involving non-permanent inadmissibility, you should not look behind a definitive DHS finding or re-adjudicate the alien’s eligibility with respect to the provision of inadmissibility described in the DHS lookout entry.

But suddenly, as of January 29, 2015 this guidance now states:

Except in cases involving non-permanent inadmissibility or in cases of 212(a)(3) grounds, you should not look behind a definitive DHS finding or re-adjudicate the alien’s eligibility with respect to the provision of inadmissibility described in the DHS lookout entry.

The 212(a)(3) grounds are the security and terrorist-based grounds of ineligibility which served as the basis for the denial of the visa to Ms. Din’s husband.

By virtue of this sudden FAM change, the SG shamelessly claimed in its reply brief that “consular officers do not automatically deny a visa application pursuant…when there is a ‘hit’ in the terrorist screening database (or another database)” and that these terrorist database determinations are even “subject to reexamination” thorough the Security Advisory Opinion (SAO) process.

The curious speed and unusual declassification of that change, and its prospective application, which served to further the SG’s litigation position, is the subject of another blog.

The SG’s claim is entirely misleading. The plain language of the FAM change requires consular officers adjudicating cases potentially raising national-security concerns to seek an SAO. But consular officers are not even part of the SAO “loop” – the SAO is managed through an inter-agency process in DC.  As such, the FAM guidance, even as changed a few weeks ago, provides no opportunity for the consular officer him or herself to exercise any modicum of discretion to “reexamine” or otherwise look behind the DHS determination. Moreover, the revised FAM provision does nothing to alter the division of responsibilities in the Memorandum of Understanding between the Secretaries of States and Homeland Security Concerning the Implementation of Section 428 of the Homeland Security Act (MOU).  Paragraph 4.b. of that MOU provides that when the State Department disagrees with the SAO of a third agency, it is DHS—not the State Department—that resolves the conflict.  Whatever change the SG has tried to conjure in the FAM, it leaves undisturbed the fact that consular officers do not deny visas as an exercise of discretion in database-driven national-security cases.

The SG’s rhetorical and sub-regulatory maneuvers have failed to conceal that the government’s argument boils down to an assertion: “Trust Us.” It is an assertion belied by the facts in the Ibrahim case, where a person the government admits poses no terrorism threat was wrongly included in government watchlists because an FBI agent checked the wrong box on a nomination form.  The fundamental principle of judicial review, particularly apposite when an American citizen’s family life is at stake, rejects leaving to government fiat the maintenance of gigantic databases disqualifying spouses from living together, without any independent oversight.  In Kerry v. Din, the Court should uphold the court of appeals’ decision that some visa decisions, including those having nothing to do with a consular officer’s discretion, are not completely shielded from judicial review.

Written by Liam Schwartz, Member, AILA State Department Liaison Committee

Politicizing Established Principles of Prosecutorial Discretion Without Offering Real Solutions

shutterstock_220237405Judge Andrew Hanen’s ruling this week issuing a temporary injunction to the expanded DACA and new DAPA programs announced as part of the President’s concrete steps to alleviate our current dysfunctional immigration system is nothing more than a political kneejerk reaction to the Administration’s efforts.

Congress has been unable to pass any legislative reform of our immigration laws despite laudable efforts by the Senate in 2013 when they presented the House with a bipartisan comprehensive immigration bill to address the three major components of immigration reform:  (1) strengthening enforcement, (2) addressing undocumented immigrants already in the US, and (3) improvement of our legal immigration process.

Obstructionists to real reform of our immigration laws have called Judge Hanen’s decision a “victory on the rule of law”; but nothing could be further from the truth.  The only ones victorious in this are restrictionists for whom sensible, reasonable measures are anathema.  The ruling sadly diverts attention from the true state of affairs – the inability of our Congress to provide real solutions for our broken immigration system.

In the past weeks, Congress appears to have set aside working on legislation that would tangibly address our immigration challenges in a balanced and commonsense manner.  We can’t take that inaction lying down. We must continue to pressure our lawmakers to take concrete steps to address the unworkable myriad of contradictory and outdated immigration laws on our books, laws that stifle entrepreneurship, hurt our economy, and separate families.  The DACA and DAPA programs did nothing more than properly direct the agency to maximize and intelligently implement prosecutorial actions to better align our nation’s security by prioritizing the removal of those who truly are a danger.

The lawsuit against DAPA and DACA is a waste of taxpayer funds, intended to obstruct programs that would provide real tangible benefits to individuals, communities and our economy at large. It is short-sighted and ineffective.  A plethora of economic studies have substantiated data that the DACA program initiated in June of 2012 has brought economic prosperity and security to both individuals and communities.  DACA and DAPA are supported by law enforcement officials around the country because they will help ensure enforcement is smarter, more efficient, and economical.

Politics must be left at the door, lawmakers must roll up their sleeves and work on providing real solutions to our immigration laws that will ensure our nation’s competitiveness, recognize the contribution of immigrants, and protect our borders. Sadly the ruling does none of those things. Congress must act.

Written by Annaluisa Padilla, AILA Second Vice President