Hello all, The National Immigration Forum's Legislative Bulletin for Friday, February 28, 2020 is now posted. You can find the online version of the bulletin here: https://immigrationforum.org/article/legislative-bulletin-friday-february-28-2020/ Best, Christian LEGISLATIVE BULLETIN - Friday, February 28, 2020BILLS INTRODUCED AND CONSIDERED THEMES IN WASHINGTON THIS WEEK SPOTLIGHT ON NATIONAL IMMIGRATION FORUM RESOURCES BILLS INTRODUCED AND CONSIDEREDH.R. 5971Case Backlog and Transparency Act of 2020 The bill would direct U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to evaluate factors contributing to the USCIS immigration case backlog and provide potential solutions to reduce the backlog. Sponsored by Representative Tony Cardenas (D-California) (1 cosponsor – 1 Republican, 0 Democrats) 02/26/2020 Introduced in the House by Representative Cardenas 02/26/2020 Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary LEGISLATIVE FLOOR CALENDARThe U.S. Senate will be in session on the week of Monday, March 2, 2020. The U.S. House of Representatives will be in session from Monday, March 2, 2020 through Thursday, March 5, 2020. UPCOMING HEARINGS AND MARKUPSA Review of the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Request for the Department of Homeland SecurityDate: Tuesday, March 3, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. (House Committee on Homeland Security) Location: 310 Cannon House Office Building Witness: Chad Wolf, Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland Security Resources and Authorities Needed to Protect and Secure the HomelandDate: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 at 2:30 p.m. (Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs) Location: 342 Dirksen Senate Office Building Witness: Chad Wolf, Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland Security THEMES IN WASHINGTON THIS WEEKFederalPublic Charge Rule Takes Effect Nationwide Following Supreme Court DecisionsOn February 24, the Trump administration’s “public charge” rule took effect, allowing federal officials to reject immigrants applying for a green card, an immigrant visa, or a temporary visa if they have previously accessed or are deemed likely to rely on certain forms of public assistance. The rule was originally scheduled to begin in October, but it was blocked by nationwide injunctions. However, in a 5-4 decision on January 27, the Supreme Court sided with the administration and removed all prior injunctions to the rule, except for a statewide injunction in Illinois. On February 21, the Supreme Court removed the remaining injunction in Illinois, allowing the rule to be implemented nationwide. The “public charge” rule expands existing policies, requiring immigration officials to take into account whether an individual is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence before granting a visa or providing a green card. The rule has stoked fear and confusion in immigrant communities, which led to declines in enrollment for public assistance and some programs, such as SNAP for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), that are exempt from the rule. Critics argue that the policy could lead to poor health outcomes for immigrants, increased costs for emergency health-care, and heavy burdens on hospitals, non-governmental service providers and food banks. Immigration advocates also note that the rule could cut legal immigration to the U.S. in half with a potential impact on over 500,000 people each year. Undocumented Immigration Population Falls to 10.6 Million, Lowest in 15 YearsAccording to a report released on February 26, the U.S. undocumented immigrant population has fallen to 10.6 million, its lowest level in over 15 years. The number represents a decline of over one million people since it stood at 11.75 million in 2010. The number of undocumented Mexicans has fallen 25% since 2010, and the undocumented South Korean and Polish populations have dropped 22% and 50%, respectively. The decline has reportedly been driven by a combination of increasingly restrictive interior enforcement and the improved economies of immigrants’ home countries. Many undocumented immigrants have returned home voluntarily to live in what they perceive as more welcoming environments. The drop in undocumented immigration has coincided with a concurrent decline in legal immigration. In 2016, 1.2 million people obtained green cards in the U.S. That number dropped to 940,877 in 2018, a 22% decline. Recent White House polices have likely made it more difficult to come to the U.S. such as, the Trump administration’s expanded travel ban, which now restricts entry from six additional countries, went into effect on February 21. On February 20, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said “we are desperate, desperate for more people.” He noted that more immigration was necessary to fuel continued economic growth. DOJ Establishes New Office to Focus on Pursuing Denaturalization CasesThe Department of Justice (DOJ) announced on February 26 that it created a new section on denaturalization dedicated to investigating and litigating cases to revoke U.S. citizenship. The DOJ said the denaturalization office, which will be housed within the Civil Division’s Office of Immigration Litigation, highlights “the department’s commitment to bring justice to terrorists, war criminals, sex offenders, and other fraudsters who illegally obtained naturalization.” The new office is expected to replace a team of DOJ immigration lawyers who had been asked to work on denaturalization cases. While the federal government could be constrained in the types of denaturalization cases it can pursue, immigration advocates argued the creation of the office was intended in part to frighten immigrant communities. In addition, some DOJ immigration lawyers reportedly expressed concern that denaturalization could be broadly used to strip individuals from their U.S. citizenship. The Trump administration previously argued in a 2017 Supreme Court case that any lie on the naturalization form – including lies involving inconsequential facts, such as driving over the speed limit – could cost an individual his or her citizenship. The Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration, holding that the lie must have materially affected the government’s decision to grant an individual U.S. citizenship. The U.S. government historically reserved denaturalization for egregious cases. From 1990 to 2017, the U.S. government pursued 305 denaturalization cases, an average of 11 per year. Since 2017, the Trump administration has filed 94 denaturalization cases and received a 600% increase in referrals from other federal agencies. USCIS launched a denaturalization task force in 2018, which has so far referred 448 potential denaturalization cases to the DOJ to prosecute. The DOJ said it was opening the new office on denaturalization because it anticipated more referrals. Justice Department Proposes Rule to Increase Fees on Immigration Court AppealsOn February 27, the DOJ Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) issued a proposed rule increasing the required fee to file an appeal in immigration court. Under the rule, fees to appeal deportation orders would rise nearly tenfold from $110 to $975. Fees for filing a motion to reopen or reconsider a case with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) would rise from $110 to $895. DOJ justified the proposed fee increases by citing an increased case load and resulting rising adjudication costs. Advocates and immigration lawyers have noted that charging nearly $1,000 to file an appeal would be prohibitively expensive for many immigrants, including asylum seekers escaping persecution. In a statement, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) argued that the DOJ is “‘pricing out’ . . . justice for many individuals and families.” The fee increases are the latest in a series of attempts by the Trump Administration to increase the cost of immigration proceedings for immigrants. A proposed fee schedule from November 2019 included a wide range of fee increases, including a new $50 fee for asylum applications and an increase of 83% on N-400 naturalization forms. LegalSupreme Court Rejects Lawsuit Against Border Patrol Agent Who Killed Mexican TeenagerThe U.S. Supreme Court on February 25 affirmed a decision in Hernandez v. Mesa from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and did not allow a lawsuit seeking damages against a Border Patrol agent who shot and killed a 15-year old Mexican teenager in 2010 who was standing on the Mexico side of the U.S. border to move forward. The Supreme Court, in a split 5-4 opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, held that the victim’s parents, who are Mexican nationals, do not have legal standing to sue the Border Patrol agent for damages in the killing. The court held that foreign nationals outside of U.S. territory are not protected by U.S. federal laws allowing lawsuits for financial damages. Justice Alito, writing for the majority, described the case as tragic, but argued it was a foreign relations and national security matter best settled diplomatically between the U.S. and Mexican governments. Alito said Congress and the president alone would have the power “to authorize the award of damages for injuries inflicted outside our borders.” The victim’s parents argued that the Border Patrol agent’s excessive force violated their son’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution. The victim’s parents say the shooting occurred as the 15-year old boy and his friends were playing a game in which they would run and touch the border fence on the Mexico side. The Border Patrol agent claimed the group threw rocks at him. On February 25, the Mexican government expressed “deep concerns about the effects that this decision will have on other similar cases, in which Mexican citizens have died from gunshots fired by U.S. agents towards the Mexican side.” The victim’s mom said the ruling could embolden other agents. Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on Law About “Encouraging” Noncitizens to Stay in the U.S. IllegallyOn February 25, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in U.S. v. Sineneng-Singh on the constitutionality of a 1986 federal law that makes it a crime to “encourage” immigrants to come to or stay in the United States without documentation. Both conservative and liberal justices expressed skepticism about the law, voicing concerns that it infringes on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Chief Justice John Roberts asked whether the law could make it illegal for a grandmother that “tells the granddaughter, ‘I hope you will stay because I will miss you.’” In addition, Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked whether the law would potentially affect charities providing food to undocumented immigrants. A similar point was raised by Justice Stephen Breyer, who inquired whether it would affect universities, church groups and localities. Some justices suggested limiting the law rather than striking it down entirely. The law’s constitutionality was brought into question following the prosecution of Evelyn Sineneng-Smith, who requested thousands of dollars from Filipino immigrants in exchange for arranging a path to legal residency that did not exist. The law was blocked by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2018. A ruling in U.S. vs. Sineneng-Smith is expected by June. Ninth Circuit Blocks “Remain in Mexico” PolicyA federal appeals court in California issued an injunction on February 28 blocking the Trump administration’s Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), also known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy, nationwide. The three-judge panel from the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, in a 2-1 decision, that MPP is “invalid in its entirety due to its inconsistency with” U.S. federal law and should be “enjoined in its entirety.” The court’s decision found that MPP likely violated federal immigration law and U.S. “non-refoulement” obligations under international and domestic law, which prevent the federal government from returning people to a country where they could face persecution. Under MPP, migrants who request asylum are sent back to wait in Mexico while their asylum cases move forward in the U.S. immigration court system. The court’s ruling noted that many of those required to wait in Mexico lacked access to basic resources and legal counsel. They have also been subject to increased risk of kidnapping and violence. So far, about 59,000 asylum seekers have been returned to wait in Mexico. A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official said the court decision could prompt the Trump administration to utilize emergency executive powers to impose more restrictions on asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border. Under the “Return to Territory” provision section 7 of the Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements Executive Order, U.S. border officials could potentially compel foreign nationals to return to Mexico or Canada if the person is deemed inadmissible. Appeals Court Rules Trump Administration Can Withhold Funds from “Sanctuary” JurisdictionsThe Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on February 26 that the Trump administration can legally withhold funds from “sanctuary jurisdictions.” The case concerned a 2017 executive order that denied congressionally funded grants to localities that limit their cooperation with federal immigration detainers. The ruling overturned a lower court decision which had required the administration to release grant funds to seven states and one city -- New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts, Virginia and Rhode Island, as well as New York City. The funds at issue come from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, which disperses $25 million annually for criminal justice-related causes. Advocates and local officials say withholding funds from localities that implement community trust policies puts communities at risk. They argue that requiring local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws can undermine public safety and community trust. The case is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. GOVERNMENT REPORTSThere were no immigration-related government reports published on the week of Monday, February 24, 2020. SPOTLIGHT ON NATIONAL IMMIGRATION FORUM RESOURCESBy Targeting ‘Sanctuary Cities,’ Attorney General Barr Puts Communities at RiskThis opinion piece by Larry Benenson, Assistant Vice President of Policy and Advocacy at the National Immigration Forum, and Jonathan Haggerty, Resident Fellow for Criminal Justice & Civil Liberties at R Street, examines recent remarks by Attorney General William Barr and the current debate on “sanctuary jurisdictions,” including the issue of immigration detainers, cooperation between local and federal law enforcement, and community trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities. The President’s Budget Request for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS): Fiscal Year (FY) 2021This summary provides an overview of the Trump administration’s budget request for the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) immigration-related responsibilities for fiscal year (FY) 2021. The summary also compares the request to the amounts enacted by Congress for FY 2020 and the President’s budget request for FY 2020. Fact Sheet on DenaturalizationThis fact sheet provides an overview of the denaturalization process, including civil and criminal denaturalization proceedings, and existing efforts to denaturalize certain individuals. * * * *This Bulletin is not intended to be comprehensive. Please contact Christian Penichet-Paul, National Immigration Forum Policy and Advocacy Manager, with comments and suggestions of additional items to be included. Christian can be reached at [email protected]. Thank you. |
|
Follow us on:  Terms & Conditions | About Us | Contact ©2011 The National Immigration Forum |
.png){kind=small}
.png){kind=small}
.png){kind=small}
