|
Hello y'all,
The National Immigration Forum's Legislative Bulletin for Friday, February 23, 2024, is now posted.
You can find the online version of the bulletin here: https://immigrationforum.org/article/legislative-bulletin-friday-february-23-2024/
All the best,
Ally
LEGISLATIVE BULLETIN - Friday, February 23, 2024
Welcome to the National Immigration Forum’s weekly bulletin! Every Friday, our policy team rounds up key developments around immigration policy in Washington and across the country. The bulletin includes items on the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, as well as some coverage at the state and local levels.
Here’s a breakdown of the bulletin’s sections:
DEVELOPMENTS IN IMMIGRATION THIS WEEK
BILLS INTRODUCED AND CONSIDERED
LEGISLATIVE FLOOR CALENDAR
UPCOMING HEARINGS AND MARKUPS
GOVERNMENT REPORTS
SPOTLIGHT ON NATIONAL IMMIGRATION FORUM RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENTS IN IMMIGRATION THIS WEEK
Immigration policy is a dynamic field subject to constant change. Here, we summarize some of the most important recent developments in immigration policy on the federal, legal, state, and local levels.
Content warning: This section sometimes includes events and information that can prove disturbing.
Federal
House Bipartisan Group Proposes Compromise for Supplemental National Security Package
On February 15, a bipartisan group of House members introduced a border and national security bill as a counteroffer to the Senate-passed supplemental package that would provide foreign aid to U.S. allies without making changes to U.S. immigration laws.
The House compromise — backed by Republicans Brian Fitzpatrick (Pennsylvania), Don Bacon (Nebraska), Michael Lawler (New York), Lori Chavez-DeRemer (Oregon), and Doug Lamborn (Colorado) and Democrats Jared Golden (Maine), Ed Case (Hawaii), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Washington), Jim Costa (California), and Don Davis (North Carolina) — significantly trims spending by focusing on military-only help for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan.
The legislation would also restart the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) — forcing asylum seekers to remain in often dangerous situations in Mexico during their U.S. immigration court adjudications — and generally require expulsions for a year, among other extreme provisions that would gut the U.S.'s asylum system.
"We appreciate bipartisan efforts and solutions, but we have significant concerns that this bill would cut off humanitarian protections and place asylum seekers in danger without including workable alternative pathways," said Jennie Murray, President and CEO of the National Immigration Forum.
The bill ventures to satisfy Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-Louisiana) demand for aggressive border changes in any national security package — just not those in the Senate immigration deal tediously negotiated for months — as immigration increasingly becomes a focal point of this year’s election.
"In these Senate and House races, my guess is both sides are going to argue about who’s the most in favor of securing the border. I think that’s what happened in New York," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) told the Hill, referencing Democrat Tom Suozzi's recent victory in a special election.
"But in the presidential race I think it’s pretty clear the president made a major, major mistake," he said. "And I think it will be a big issue in his race."
Yet after the defeat of the Senate immigration deal — which included sweeping restrictions in exchange for small positive reforms, and which died amid GOP opposition — Democrats are seeing an opportunity to flip the script on border challenges. And, as further evidence that some Republicans only want to use border politics as an electoral talking point but aren't invested in solutions, the Biden administration is leaning into Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas' impeachment as "petty partisan games."
"House Republicans will be remembered by history for trampling on the Constitution for political gain rather than working to solve the serious challenges at our border. While Secretary Mayorkas was helping a group of Republican and Democratic Senators develop bipartisan solutions to strengthen border security and get needed resources for enforcement, House Republicans have wasted months with this baseless, unconstitutional impeachment," DHS spokesperson Mia Ehrenberg said, modeling how Democrats are going on the offensive when it comes to immigration this election year.
Meanwhile, whispers of a potential shutdown are growing as Johnson walks a tightrope between trying to fund the federal government and saving his own job as speaker, amid pressure from the Freedom Caucus to forgo a deal with Democrats.
Biden Weighs Further Executive Action Amid Congressional Gridlock
With Congress largely out-of-play, widespread reports indicate the Biden administration is mulling aggressive executive actions to make it more difficult for asylum seekers to access protection at the U.S.-Mexico border — despite a dearth of resources and the promise of resulting lawsuits.
For one, the administration is weighing whether to ban migrants who cross between official ports of entry from qualifying for asylum, potentially based on a trigger number of entries over a certain period of time. To do so, President Biden may try to rely on Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which was infamously deployed by his predecessor to impose what critics dubbed a Muslim ban.
The Trump administration similarly tried to bar asylum between ports of entry by invoking Section 212(f) alongside rulemaking. Biden, in turn, has already used the controversial INA provision to justify a number of more narrow proclamations and executive orders.
At the same time, the Biden administration is reportedly considering whether to raise the initial screening standard for asylum seekers in fast-tracked deportations — a change that’s already been effectively made once through the "Circumvention of Lawful Pathways" rule, which renders many migrants ineligible for asylum and subjects them to higher eligibility thresholds.
Another report suggests that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) may follow a "last in, first out" policy for deportations, so that the most recent arrivals are rapidly repatriated.
On February 21, the State Department also announced a new policy restricting visas for owners, executives, or senior officials at transportation companies that carry unauthorized migrants en route to the U.S.
Taken together, the Biden administration’s hawkish turn includes soundbites and policy ideas eerily reminiscent of the Trump administration, during an election year when Democrats have identified public concerns over the border and immigration as a political liability.
Yet even as Biden considers sweeping, unilateral border changes, "no executive action, no matter how aggressive, can deliver the significant policy reforms and additional resources Congress can provide and that Republicans rejected," argued White House spokesperson Angelo Fernández Hernández.
Legal
Texas, Biden Administration Battle Over Immigration Enforcement Authority
On February 15, less than a month before Texas’s controversial Senate Bill 4 is slated to take effect, a federal judge in Austin considered the new law’s legality as the federal government clashes with the state’s GOP leadership over who can detain and deport migrants at the U.S.’s southern border.
While U.S. District Judge David Ezra expressed empathy for Texas's struggles along its border with Mexico, he seemingly took issue with the state’s latest attempt to co-opt immigration enforcement through SB 4, by allowing state officials to apprehend and effectively remove migrants and asylum seekers who cross without authorization.
Ezra didn’t buy Texas's characterization of large-scale humanitarian migration as an "invasion," and he decried a potential patchwork of inconsistent state interpretations around federal immigration laws as a "nightmare." But even as he warned that more care should have gone into the state law’s drafting, he promised both parties that he would rule as quickly as possible to allow time for appeal.
"I would not be surprised at all if this case finds its way to the Supreme Court," he said.
Meanwhile, the Texas attorney general's office has picked a separate legal fight with Annunciation House, an El Paso nonprofit that runs shelters for migrants, in an attempt to shutter the organization.
Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas) called Annunciation House "a model of humanitarian support for decades" and slammed the state’s attack as "dangerous, hateful, and shameful." Bishop Mark J. Seitz of the El Paso Catholic Diocese criticized "an escalating campaign of intimidation, fear and dehumanization in the state of Texas, one characterized by barbed wire, harsh new laws penalizing the act of seeking safety at our border, and the targeting of those who would offer aid as a response of faith."
"The Attorney General’s illegal, immoral and anti-faith position to shut down Annunciation House is unfounded," said Ruben Garcia, the organization’s director. "If the work that Annunciation House conducts is illegal – so too is the work of our local hospitals, schools, and food banks."
The two legal battles come as Texas forges ahead with its Operation Lone Star campaign against irregular migration, including by transporting more than 102,000 migrants to Democratic-led cities across the country — at an over $148 million cost to taxpayers. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) has also announced that the state will install a new military base in the Eagle Pass area, to host as many as 2,300 National Guard soldiers as governors in other states offer personnel reinforcements.
At the same time, Russia is reportedly preying on these divisions between Texas and the federal government to foment a disinformation campaign online and provoke further instability.
Federal Judge Calls SCOTUS Opinion A 'Mess,' Sides With Florida
On February 16, U.S. District Judge T. Kent Wetherell II ruled that Florida still has standing to challenge the Biden administration's reliance on alternatives to detention amid removal proceedings, despite a recent Supreme Court precedent on a similar state challenge to federal immigration enforcement that would suggest it doesn’t.
Wetherell called that Supreme Court decision — penned by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who like Wetherell was appointed by the former Republican president, Donald Trump — "a bit of a jurisprudential mess that raises more questions than it answers."
The issue at hand involves what critics call a "catch and release" policy, where many migrants and asylum seekers are not subjected to prolonged detention while they pursue their cases in immigration court. Despite the U.S. boasting the world’s largest immigrant detention system, it simply does not have the capacity to detain the millions of people who are currently undergoing backlogged adjudications.
Even so, Wetherell said that "statutes mandating detention and restricting release do not implicate principles of ‘Executive Branch enforcement discretion’ or contravene any 'deeply rooted history of enforcement discretion in American law.’"
New York City Voting Law Sustains Another Obstacle in Court
On February 21, a New York City law that would expand local voting rights to green card holders and noncitizens with federal work authorization suffered another blow when a state appeals court ruled that it would violate New York’s constitution and its Municipal Home Rule Law.
It wasn’t immediately clear whether Mayor Eric Adams's administration — which has been championing the law — would appeal the latest decision. But defenders of the policy decried the lawsuit as a "shameful" way to "disenfranchise residents rather than promote a more inclusive and participatory democracy."
"Immigrant New Yorkers deserve a say in how their local government functions and spends their tax money, and we remain committed to ensuring the expansion of voting rights," said Murad Awawdeh, executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition.
If effected, the law would let some noncitizens in New York City vote for offices such as mayor and city council member.
State and Local
Chicago Wavers on Funding for Migrant Care Amid Vacuum of Federal Aid
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D) and Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle (D) plan to pitch in a combined $252 million to fund resources for many thousands of recent arrivals in Chicago, as the federal government’s inaction unloads migrant care onto local and state officials across the country.
But Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson (D) has stirred frustration after he reportedly backed out of a commitment to also contribute to the funding package, with some community members questioning his dedication to the cause.
"I really want to believe that there is nobody more committed to this mission than Mayor Brandon Johnson. But of course, the money is really where that rubber hits the road," said volunteer Annie Gomberg.
Some analysts posit Johnson’s reluctance to devote more resources to newcomers could be due to mounting pressure from Chicago’s Black community, who worry that they may in turn be left high and dry. Reports also suggest Johnson could be hoping beyond hope for long-sought relief from the federal government.
Meanwhile, arrival numbers in the Windy City are down and Chicago shelters are the least crowded they’ve been since last November, with four facilities able to shut
down completely. Even so, Johnson’s shelter evictions loom large for migrants who remain in the city’s care.
State Lawmakers in Wisconsin Propose Legislation to Improve Educational, Work Opportunities for Dreamers
Over the legislative session, Wisconsin state lawmakers have been considering a bipartisan push led by state Reps. John Macco (R-Ledgeview) and Sylvia Ortiz-Velez
(D-Milwaukee) that would help Dreamers access education and pursue licensed professions in the state.
"Wisconsin is facing a workforce shortage and a decline in enrollment across our universities," Macco said. "DACA recipients are here… It’s time to get out of their way and let them get educated and contribute to the workforce."
Proposals include a tax credit to help alleviate the financial burden recipients of relief through the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program must bear to file to regularly renew their status. Other bills
would allow Wisconsin’s DACA beneficiaries to qualify for in-state tuition and let them pursue careers in fields such as nursing, teaching, or engineering.
BILLS INTRODUCED AND CONSIDERED
It can be challenging to keep up with the constant barrage of proposed legislation in Congress. So, every week, we round up new bills. This list includes federal legislative proposals that have recently been introduced and that are relevant to immigration policy.
Please follow this link to find new relevant bills, as well as proposed legislation from past weeks.
LEGISLATIVE FLOOR CALENDAR
The U.S. Senate is expected to be in session from Monday, February 26 through Friday, March 1, 2024.
The U.S. House of Representatives is expected not to be in session from Monday, February 26 through Friday, March 1, 2024.
UPCOMING HEARINGS AND MARKUPS
Here, we round up congressional hearings and markups happening in the field or in Washington.
Date: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. EST (Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions)
Location: S-127, Washington, D.C.
Nominees:
Julie A. Su to be Secretary of Labor
Moshe Z. Marvit to be a member of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Stephen H. Ravas to be Inspector General, Corporation for National and Community Service
GOVERNMENT REPORTS
Reports by bodies such as the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the Congressional Research Service, and the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General provide invaluable information on immigration policy and practice. Here, we give brief summaries of new immigration-related reports, with links to the resources themselves in case you want to learn more.
This report — based on an audit by contractor RMA Associates, LLC — found that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was generally in compliance with requirements around grants and contracts awarded without a full and open competition, though the department had failed to submit relevant information by the legal deadline.
This report looks at the disciplinary adjudication process of four Department of Homeland Security (DHS) components, including safeguards to ensure consistency. It finds, in part, that supervisors are less likely to face discipline for alleged misconduct than non-supervisor personnel.
This legal sidebar explores the president's authority to suspend certain people's entries and departures historically and today, with a detailed list of examples where the U.S. code was invoked between 1980 and 2024 to restrict migration.
This report is the ninth of its kind. It analyzes metrics of success around the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) major acquisition programs, which represent billions of dollars in investments every year.
SPOTLIGHT ON NATIONAL IMMIGRATION FORUM RESOURCES
The Forum is constantly publishing new policy-focused resources that engage with some of the most topical issues around immigration today. Here are a few that are particularly relevant this week:
This explainer breaks down the major immigration and border policy changes in the bipartisan compromise that was defeated in the Senate earlier this month.
In 2024, the United States continues to face significant demographic challenges. Propelled by falling birth rates, the U.S. population is rapidly aging and population growth
is steadily declining. In turn, the country is experiencing economic and social pressures caused by labor shortages. This article provides a follow-up to "Room to Grow," a 2021 white paper where the National Immigration Forum proposed a methodology that showed that the country needed a 37% increase in net immigration levels over those projected for fiscal year 2020 (approximately 370,000 additional immigrants a year) to prevent the U.S. from falling into demographic deficit and socioeconomic decline.
A group of Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives introduced the Defending Borders, Defending Democracies Act (H.R. 7372) on February 15, 2024. This legislative package includes changes to border security policies and the asylum process in the U.S., along with $66.32 billion in national security spending.
* * * *This Bulletin is not intended to be comprehensive. Please contact Alexandra Villarreal, Senior Policy and Advocacy Associate at the National Immigration Forum, with comments and suggestions of additional items to be included. Alexandra can be reached at [email protected]. Thank you.
| 
