Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: Trump’s First Move on U.S. Immigration, Though Not Unexpected, is a Bombshell By Bernard Wolfsdorf, Esq. and Joseph Barnett, Esq.

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: Trump’s First Move on U.S. Immigration, Though Not Unexpected, is a Bombshell By Bernard Wolfsdorf, Esq. and Joseph Barnett, Esq.

    Trump’s First Move on U.S. Immigration, Though Not Unexpected, is a Bombshell

    by


    Backing up campaign promises that helped him become the 45th President of the United States, today Donald Trump announced executive actions on immigration, called Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements and Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States. We expect President Trump to announce additional executive actions on immigration later this week.

    These executive actions cover the following topics, which are intended to protect U.S. citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the U.S.:

    1. Wall Along U.S.-Mexico Border. A wall on the U.S.-Mexico border was one of President Trump’s signature campaign issues. He is now ordering the construction of that wall, based on his supposed authority under the Secure Fence Act of 2006 signed into law by President George W. Bush, which called for 700 miles of “reinforced fencing” along the U.S.-Mexico border along with enhanced surveillance systems, that was never completed. President Trump will still have to contend with how construction will be financed and whether U.S. Congress will enact legislation that overrides current environmental protections for major federal projects.

    2. Stop Refugee Admissions. President Trump will enact a 120-day pause in refugee admissions to the U.S., with exceptions permitted for those fleeing religious persecution, if their religion is a minority in their country of nationality. President Trump is also hoping to reduce refugee admissions for FY 2017 to 50,000 from President Obama’s goal of 110,000.

    3. Ban Entry to U.S. from Certain Muslim-Majority Countries. President Trump will create a ban on entry into the U.S. for at least 30 days of all immigrants and nonimmigrant nationals of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. He may also require each applicant to demonstrate that he/she is not a security or public-safety threat to the U.S. Other countries may be added and adjudications of other immigration benefits besides visas could be impacted.

    4. Uniform Screening for Immigration Benefits. President Trump will add requirements to screenings and procedures for all immigration benefits to identify fraud and detect applicants’ intent to do harm, following up his campaign promise for “extreme vetting.” He will direct immigration agencies to expedite the completion of entries into the biometric entry-exit data system. He will also suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program, requiring all visa applicants to attend a visa interview, unless otherwise exempt by statute.

    5. Detention for Illegal Entry. President Trump directed the issuance of new policy guidance to all Department of Homeland Security personnel regarding the appropriate and consistent use of lawful detention authority under the INA, including the termination of the practice commonly known as “catch and release,” whereby aliens are routinely released in the United States shortly after their apprehension for violations of immigration law

    6. Curb Funding to Sanctuary Cities. President Trump is expected to move forward with plans to curb funding of “sanctuary cities” that do not arrest or detain immigrants living in the U.S. illegally.

    Like his predecessor, President Trump will use executive actions to enact his preferred immigration policies, as the U.S. Congress remains deadlocked on the politically divisive issue of Comprehensive Immigration Reform (“CIR”). Notably, there was a lack of detail regarding the prospect of continuing President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) program.

    This post originally appeared on Wolfsdorf Immigration Law Group. Copyright © 2017 Wolfsdorf Connect - All Rights Reserved. Reprinted with permission.


    About The Author

    Bernard Wolfsdorf Bernard Wolfsdorf is the managing partner of the top-rated law firm, Wolfsdorf Rosenthal LLP (www.wolfsdorf.com), and the past national president of the 14,000-member American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). Established in 1986, Wolfsdorf Rosenthal LLP is known worldwide for providing exceptional quality legal services. With 19 lawyers and offices in Los Angles and New York, the firm was recently listed as a top-tier immigration practice by Chambers & Partners with several of the firm's attorneys listed in the 2015 International Who's Who Legal. Mr. Wolfsdorf specializes in EB-5 investment immigration in addition to the full range of global immigration matters. Joseph Barnett is licensed as an attorney in the State of Illinois and the State of Wisconsin and practices exclusively in immigration and nationality law.


    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.


    • ImmigrationLawBlogs
      #1
      Editing a comment
      Why is anyone surprised that Trump is using anti-immigrant hate to bring America closer to fascism? Isn't this what he promised to do all along throughout his campaign? Why are people only beginning to take him seriously now, when it may be too late to stop him?

      Roger Algase
      Attorney at Law
    Posting comments is disabled.

Categories

Collapse

article_tags

Collapse

There are no tags yet.

Latest Articles

Collapse

  • Article: Birthright Citizenship Is Not A Legal Assumption; It
    ImmigrationDaily
    Last week on Fox News, Tucker Carlson said,
    08-21-2018, 01:24 PM
  • Blogging: Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation.. By Roger Algase
    ImmigrationDaily
    Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation. Trashing Immigrant Rights Endangers Freedom of All Americans.

    CNN reports on August 21 that 175 former US officials have denounced Donald Trump for revoking the security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan for speaking out in opposition to Trump.

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/20/polit...ent/index.html

    Presidential use of "national security"
    ...
    08-21-2018, 12:54 PM
  • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko
    ImmigrationDaily

    If you are having difficulty viewing this document please click here.

    08-20-2018, 08:15 AM
  • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
    ImmigrationDaily
    Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
    08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
  • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
    ImmigrationDaily
    Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
    08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
  • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.
    ImmigrationDaily

    Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence

    by


    On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families). https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...immigrants.pdf

    USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors https://www.uscis.gov/news/uscis-iss...hange-visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

    08-15-2018, 12:57 PM
Working...
X