Mediaboss Marketing

President Biden has proposed sweeping changes to U.S. immigration law, contained in the pending U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021. This piece of proposed legislation, as introduced into Congress by the bills lead sponsors, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA), contains several measures which would provide a boost to immigrants and employers aiming to expand their worker pool. However, the legislation would also ramp up enforcement efforts on the part of federal immigration officials meaning that employers should consider preparing now for increased risks and compliance challenges. What should you know about this proposal?

Overview of Proposed Legislation

The bill contains numerous provisions that would be helpful for immigrants and employers, including:

While many of these provisions are indeed very friendly to immigrants and companies seeking to employ foreign national workers, there are risks for employers contained in this proposed bill as well. Indeed, the usual horse trade when Democrats propose immigration reform with many immigrant-friendly provisions (i.e., the carrot) is that they offer some pro-enforcement provisions in an attempt to attract support from the other side of the political aisle, such as increasing worksite enforcement and audits (i.e., the stick).

Potential Risks to Employers

If the bill passes, employers will have more incentives to comply with federal, state, and local employment laws, specifically with respect to enforcement actions by ICE (Immigrations and Customs Enforcement).

Employment Authorization Changes

Title 5 of the proposed U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 is entitled Employment Authorization and Protecting Workers from Exploitation, which envisions the establishment of a Commission on Employment Authorization. This group would consist of presidential and congressional appointees who would be charged with examining the current processes for employment authorization and proposing possible changes. The goal of the commission is to respect the rights of employment-authorized individuals to work in the United States, and to protect workers rights to be free from race and national-origin discrimination.

Employment Verification Once Again Up for Debate

Under Section 5101 of the proposed law, a commission would be established to make policy recommendations regarding employment-verification systems. The goal: to ensure employees are not incorrectly deemed ineligible for employment based on false positives, nor subject to discrimination based on race or national origin. The commission would also review the error rates for E-Verify and its impacts on various groups by national origin, race, gender, and socioeconomic background. At the end of the process, the government would be required to determine which recommendations are most likely to improve existing employment verification systems, keeping in mind whether such recommendations are feasible within existing budget restraints.

The net result of this activity certainly could involve an increase of employer compliance obligations under both E-Verify and I-9 employment eligibility verification processes. There are also provisions in the proposed legislation that would penalize employers who misuse E-Verify in ways that discriminate based on national origin or citizenship, deny employee benefits, allow unauthorized access to E-Verify data, or use an employment authorization verification system other than E-Verify.

Ramped-Up Penalties

Title 5 of the bill contains a provision which states that if an agency finds that an employer has engaged in civil violations of federal, state, or local labor laws regarding wages and hours, labor relations, family and medical leave, occupational health and safety, civil rights or nondiscrimination regarding an unauthorized worker, the employer would be subject to an additional civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each unauthorized noncitizen worker to whom the violation occurred. This fine is separate and apart from any penalties imposed by governmental agencies for violation of the underlying statutes themselves.

Additional Provisions

Some additional provisions of the proposed legislation would aim to refresh the current immigration system in many respects.

Visa Eligibility

Another provision would expand the eligibility of U visas for those who assist with immigration-related compliance and enforcement activities. According to the USCIS, the U nonimmigrant status (U visa) is set aside for victims of certain crimes who have suffered mental or physical abuse and are helpful to law enforcement or government officials in the investigation or prosecution of criminal activity. U visa eligibility would be expanded to include workers that have been subject to serious abuse by employers, or that have, are, or will be helpful to authorities investigating, prosecuting, or seeking civil remedies for a labor or employment violation arising from workplace claims.

In addition, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would allow an individual to remain in the U.S., delay a removal, and grant such an individual work authorization if this person has filed for a U visa, has filed a claim, or is a material witness to a workplace claim and has, is or will be helpful during the investigation. In situations where the DHS conducts an enforcement action where a workplace claim has been filed or based on information provided in retaliation against employees regarding a claim, the DHS will stay the removal of any detained noncitizens until the law enforcement agency with jurisdiction over the violations/criminal activity has been notified and the agency has had the chance to interview the individual.

Another provision would allow immigrants in the United States on temporary work visas to assert citizenship status discrimination. This is a change from the current law, which only allows U.S. Citizens, Green Card holders, and some asylees or refugees to make such claims. The proposed law would also grant enforcement jurisdiction to the Immigrant and Employee Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division within the Department of Justice, which would remain removing this authority from where it currently resides, with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Temporary Limitations

One other provision (which is not related to worksite enforcement or penalties per se) would allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish procedures for temporarily limiting employment-based immigrants from entering the country and/or applying for Green Cards in geographic areas or labor market sectors that are experiencing high levels of unemployment. How this provision could be utilized, or potentially abused, is quite unclear, especially since what is meant by high levels of unemployment is not defined in the bill.

Conclusion

We will continue to monitor this bill as it makes its way through Congress.Now is a good time to make sure your internal processes and procedures do not pose potential discrimination claims, and that their I-9s are in good shape. Yourattorney can guide you through these compliance challenges before ICE ramps up its enforcement efforts.

Read the original:
The Slippery Road Toward Immigration Reform Under President Biden: Beware of ICE! - JD Supra

Ms. Cabrales, who lives in Kansas City, Missouri, is desperately searching for avenues to help her husband gain legal immigration status. Since she is a U.S. citizen, she should be able to sponsor her husband for an immediate green card. But because he is living in the United States without status, the couple faces significant hurdles under current immigration law.*

Current immigration laws do not provide U.S. citizens or employers with a viable pathway to sponsor their undocumented family members or workers for lawful permanent residence, even if they would otherwise be eligible for a green card, if those individuals entered the United States without inspection and are still living in the country. Undocumented immigrants must first leave the country and apply for an immigrant visa at a consulate abroad. But once they leave, they face a lengthy ban on returning due to a cruel Catch-22 law put in place in 1996 that subjects anyone who was in the United States without legal immigration status for more than six months to a reentry bar of three or 10 years. This makes getting a green card effectively impossible for millions of people who should have a legal pathway to do so.

As Congress and the Biden administration move to create a more fair, humane, and workable immigration system, they should use every avenue possible to put undocumented immigrants on a pathway to legal status. This includes reinstating the Legal Immigration Family Equity (LIFE) Act and eliminating the three and 10-year bars to entry. These changes would allow as many as 2.3 million immigrants who are married to U.S. citizens or green card holders or have employers who could sponsor them to apply for a green card. Historically, these solutions have had bipartisan support and would reduce barriers for people to apply for legal status, which is currently inaccessible to them due to the bars on reentry.

Entered without inspection: When noncitizens enter the United States without applying and presenting themselves before an immigration officer at a port of entry, they are said to have entered without inspection.

Overstayed a visa: A noncitizen is said to have overstayed a visa if they were lawfully admitted but remained in the United States beyond the authorized period. If a visa overstayer is an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident, they can apply for adjustment of status from within the United States without being affected by the bars.

Three- and 10-year bars: These bars, included in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Actof 1996, prevent undocumented immigrants who leave the United States from returning for specified periods of time. If someone accrues more than 180 days but less than one year of unlawful presence, they are barred from reentering for three years. If someone accrues one year or longer of unlawful presence, they are subject to a 10-year bar. If individuals can prove extreme hardship, among other requirements, they can apply for a provisional waiver that is precleared in the United States, allowing them to depart the country to get their visa without triggering the reentry bars. In 2016, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) published a new policy guidance that opened up the process to a larger group and clarified how it would adjudicate cases.

Section 245(i) of the LIFE Act: A temporary provision that allowed immigrants who entered the United States without inspection to pay a penalty fee to adjust their immigration status via family and employment-based visa petitions, filed between January 15, 1998, and April 30, 2001, without leaving the country and triggering the reentry bars.

Section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) sets the eligibility criteria for adjustment of immigration status. Among other requirements, applicants must have been inspected and admitted into the United States; hold lawful status, with exceptions for immediate family members and visa overstayers who entered with inspection but have no legal status at the time of application; and have a visa available to them. In 1994, Section 245(i) was added to the INA as a temporary provision intended to alleviate burdens on consular offices overseas. It allowed eligible individuals to receive permanent resident status without first leaving the United States and without having to satisfy the inspected and admitted provision of 245(a). The creation of the three- and 10-year bars in 1996 increased the significance of 245(i), as the bars had harsh consequences for undocumented persons who left the United States.

The 245(i) provision enjoyed broad bipartisan support. Early on, it eased the workload of U.S. consulates, and after the reentry bars were instituted, it provided a way to keep families together. In 1997, during the Clinton administration, Republican majorities in the House and Senate extended the provision three times. In 2000, a divided Congress extended Section 245(i) through the LIFE Act. The provision was extended for the last time in 2001 and had strong support from then-President George W. Bush, who said that it recognize[d] the importance of families and that the reentry bars forced undocumented immigrants to stay in the United States without status to avoid separating from their families.

The 245(i) provision expired in 2001 and has not been extended by Congress since. However, in 2013, the Obama administration lowered the risk of triggering the three- and 10-year bars by issuing a rule called the provisional stateside waiver. This rule allowed eligible undocumented family membersand as of 2016, applicants from all immigrant classificationsto travel abroad for their green card without triggering a bar.

Reinstating 245(i) and eliminating the three- and 10-year bars could provide a much-needed solution for many undocumented immigrant family members of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents, as well as immigrant workers. According to the authors analysis, there are as many as 2.3 million undocumented immigrants in the United States who have a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident spouse or an employer who may be able to sponsor them for a green card. 1.4 million people have a U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse, and 1.1 million may have such an employer. This estimate does not include eligible undocumented parents of unmarried U.S. citizen children ages 21 or older who can petition for them. (see the Methodology below for more information on data limitations)

Over the years, there has been bipartisan support for eliminating the three- and 10-year bars. Former and current members of Congress including Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID), Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) have supported repealing or reforming the bars. Recently, Sen. Catherine Cortez-Masto (D-NV) introduced the Fairness for Immigrant Families Act, which would eliminate the bars and reinstate Section 245(i). President Joe Biden also proposed eliminating the bars in his comprehensive immigration reform bill, the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021.

The reinstatement of the LIFE Act or elimination of the three- and 10-year bars, or both, should be part of any legislative solution for immigration, either on their own or as part of a commonsense package that puts undocumented immigrantsincluding Dreamers, Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders, and farm and essential workerson a pathway to citizenship. Reinstating Section 245(i) of the LIFE Act alone would allow eligible people to process their application without leaving the country and triggering the bars.

Ms. Cabrales feels stuck because her husbands immigration status prevents them from fully building their lives in the United States. Adding that her husband works in construction, supports her, and pays taxes, she remarked, I am a U.S. citizen and I want to help my spouse it [the U.S. immigration system] is just not letting us. Reinstating the LIFE Act, which would allow people like her husband to apply for his green card without leaving the United States, and removing the reentry bars, which would not penalize him for leaving the country, would go a long way toward ensuring that the Cabraleses and millions like them can build a secure future and follow their aspirations.

* Ms. Cabrales, phone interview with author, Kansas City, Missouri, May 21, 2021.

Silva Mathema is the acting director of the Immigration Policy team at the Center for American Progress. Nicole Prchal Svajlenka is an associate director for research on the Immigration Policy team at the Center. Sofia Carratala is the research assistant for Immigration Policy at the Center.

The authors would like to thank Gregory H. Siskind and Lily S. Axelrod from Siskind Susser PC for providing their expertise; Gregory Z. Chen from the American Immigration Lawyers Association and Angela J. Ferguson from Austin & Ferguson, L.L.C. for their help; and Ms. Cabrales for sharing her story.

Estimates of the population who may be eligible for legal permanent residence if 245(i) is reinstated or if the three- and 10-year bars are eliminated are based on CAPs analysis of 2018 and 2019 one-year American Community Survey (ACS) microdata, accessed through the University of Minnesotas IPUMS USA database.

The size of this population is difficult to estimate due to certain limitations within ACS data. First, the ACS does not ask individuals about their immigration status. Using a series of editsbased on characteristics such as year of arrival in the United States, country of birth, occupation, and certain family relationshipsthe authors identified records of people they believe are likely to be undocumented. Additionally, researchers using ACS data cannot identify how many of the 2.3 million immigrants were undocumented because they overstayed a visa and how many were undocumented because they entered the United States without inspection. Researchers also cannot identify who is eligible for employer sponsorship or whether a visa would be available to them immediately. In an effort to match USCIS guidance on typical requirements for employment-based visa categories, this analysis counts as eligible for employer sponsorship undocumented immigrants who are employed but not self-employed and those who have received a bachelors or advanced degree. These categories include an overlap of almost 200,000 people; thus, the total does not equal the sum. Lastly, because the data only show family relationships for individuals living in the same households, the analysis cannot capture people who may be eligiblefor example, parents of U.S. citizens who are themselves adultswho are not living with a family member who could sponsor them.

See more here:
Reinstating the LIFE Act and Eliminating Entry Bars Would Allow Millions of Immigrants To Stay With Their Families - Center For American Progress

The latest net migration statistics published on 27 May are a much-delayed snapshot of England and Wales. The Office for National Statistics notes that new data from the year up to June 2019 should be viewed with some caution as Covid impacted its data collection.

Nonetheless, these new figures raise serious questions about the future plans for immigration reform announced by the government earlier this week.

The latest data shows drops in all areas from EU and non-EU citizens alike. Visits to England or Wales for work or study for three months to a year fell from 160,000 in June 2018 to 100,000 by June 2019. The only category where migration rose was in British citizens seeking work abroad. This doubled from 30,000 to 60,000 over the same period.

The picture being painted is clear. Most did not see England and Wales as a place welcoming global talent, with a greater number of citizens looking elsewhere for opportunities. The trend continues in estimates up to this spring, where work-related visas were down by over one third on last year, with more than two thirds due to falls in intra-company transfers.

While there should be some caution regarding these estimates, they show that in the run-up to 1 January 2020, those seeking work and study opportunities were looking elsewhere and this was before the pandemic arrived. It seems all but certain that this is the start of an unfortunate trend that the government may want to address urgently.

Since 2010, the Conservatives have made election manifesto promises to cut net migration to the tens of thousands. One regular criticism is that net migration has not, in fact, been higher than under the Tories. This highlights how their rhetoric does not match reality. Talking tough has not translated into results.

A second frequently raised concern is about the use of net migration for setting policy. Net migration counts all individuals entering or leaving over the year regardless of their nationality and mostly estimated using passenger data, making it more guesswork than science.

It has been noticeable for years that net migration would actually be higher if British citizens who are more likely to leave for abroad than return were discounted from the figures.

Earlier this week, home secretary Priti Patel vowed to strengthen the UKs digital border and introduce greater accuracy, avoiding hypothetical guesstimates of how much migration is actually happening. It is a shocking indictment that it has taken the Conservatives more than a decade to finally commit the government to getting a more accurate count, although no such system will be in place until 2025.

Paradoxically, the Tories have said they will not make any promises on migration reductions as they strive towards better accounting. This comes after making promises to cut numbers when the figures were known to be problematic for policy making.

This move towards improved accuracy is a part of Patels new plan for immigration, which sets out how she will fix the broken immigration system that her government has overseen for 11 years. While Patel wont say whether the new plan would lead to more or less immigration, it is clear she wants to position these plans as radical and positive changes. But in short, does it matter?

Her plans include a much-heralded points-based system. What Patel leaves out is that the new system was actually already in place since 2008, when launched by New Labour. Patels plans mean that the already complex and confusing system will be changing for the worse.

For example, there is no one size fits all approach to a minimum salary needed. Instead, what is required and the number of points earned will depend on what occupation someone is in and the latest annual report on what the average salaries happen to be at that time, subject to regular changes that will cause major confusion in calculating whether someone can or cannot apply.

Given that the system was already in place for non-EU citizens in 2019, these changes do not appear likely to encourage global talent to work in the UK.

Patel also plans to reform the appeal process for rejected applicants. While she cites too many repeated unmeritorious appeals and claims as justification, Patel is silent on the large number of successful appeals against the Home Office.

If the home secretary wants a fairer and more transparent system, she can start by ensuring her department does a better job at enforcing their own rules in the first place. This proposal is also unlikely to lead to any beneficial changes. The latest figures for this spring show a drop of more than 40 per cent in grants of asylum, mostly because far fewer applications have been processed, leading to a record-level rising backlog.

Finally, a major aim of the new plan is to reform the UKs asylum and refugee policy. Patel proposes to cut numbers by diverting some to apply on new economic migration pathways, which simply involves counting the same individuals, but in a different way.

None of these proposals address the core issues. Global talent is mobile, but the government fails to make a case for why more of the most talented should choose to relocate to a country where its immigration laws are becoming more complex, confusing, too often wrongly applied and in a continuous state of flux, where policies are aimed at making headlines and not evidence-led.

A more thorough, publicly engaged review is needed to ensure the system is fit for purpose and has public confidence. Until then, Patels plans may only fuel the unfortunate trend we see in these latest migration statistics. It will be yet another failed government strategy, that leaves us all worse off.

Thom Brooks is dean of Durham Law School and Professor of Law and Government at Durham University

Read more:
Priti Patels immigration reform is a confusing mess that will leave us worse off - The Independent

Significant divides remain between Democrats and Republicans about United States immigration policy priorities, but significant divides also exist between two types of Republicans: Those more loyal to the party and those more loyal to former President Donald Trump.

This is among the findings of new national research by Morning Consult and the Bipartisan Policy Center. The polling was conducted in April and May 2021.

There are a few areas where Democrats and party-loyal Republicans could find agreement, the data show, if both sides are willing to work together. However, the new poll also found that Democrats are more likely to be willing to compromise to get immigration reform passed than are Republicans.

The new poll also found that Democrats are more likely to be willing to compromise to get immigration reform passed than are Republicans.

And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said publicly that he is 100% focused on stopping the entire legislative agenda of President Joe Biden, a pledge similar to one he made when attempting to block then-President Barack Obama from any legislative success. Because immigration reform is a high priority for Democrats, McConnell could lead the Senate to blockade any proposed bills.

If he does so, however, that will happen against the will of a majority of Americans, who generally favor key pieces of immigration reform, including creating a pathway to citizenship for those already illegally in the country.

Previous polling by Public Religion Research Institute found American public sentiment more closely mirrors priorities of the Biden administration than those of his America First predecessor or the Republican Party. For example, 66% of Americans favor allowing undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children to gain legal resident status and 64% favor allowing all immigrants living in the country illegally a path to citizenship provided they meet certain requirements.

Congress seldom votes along the lines of majority public opinion, however, falling into ideologies favorable to each elected officials base of voters. And currently, Republicans in both the House and Senate tend to skew more toward supporting Trump rather than the party apart from Trump.

The new polling dug into what differentiates Trump-focused Republicans from party-focused Republicans. It found that 64% of Republican respondents said they identify more with the party than Trump, while 31% said they identify more with Trump.

Party-aligned Republicans place greater importance on immigration policies granting temporary and permanent economic visas than Trump-aligned Republicans.

And party-aligned Republicans also place greater importance on allowing temporary or permanent refuge to those living in the United States for many years after fleeing persecution.

Trump-loyal Republicans are more likely than party-loyal Republicans to prioritize preventing immigrants not authorized to enter the U.S. under current laws from migrating at the border. They also are more likely to prioritize removing all immigrants already in the U.S. without authorization.

There are at least two areas where Democrats and party-loyal Republicans but not Trump-loyal Republicans rank their priorities in a similar manner. These are not necessarily the top priorities for either side but are areas where both sides express similar levels of interest.

Reforms that focus on legal immigration could be a pathway for bipartisanship, the pollsters reported. While Democrats and Republicans seem divided on many immigration issues, some consensus exists on less controversial matters such as legal immigration that supports the U.S. economy.

Reforms that focus on legal immigration could be a pathway for bipartisanship.

Among the issues where Democrats, independents and Republicans are more likely to compromise is providing visas for immigrants supporting the U.S. economy by filling positions where companies cannot find U.S. workers.

There is more room for policymakers to work together on this issue since none of the parties are unwilling to compromise on this particular policy, the pollsters said. Another possible area of working together is on providing visas for immigrants investing in research and innovation for future growth of the U.S. economy.

On the issue of compromise, however, the poll found Republicans are less willing to accept Democratic priorities than to drop one of theirs to get to compromise. Although neither Democrats nor Republicans were likely to compromise on their highest priorities, Republicans were less likely to accept a Democratic priority than to drop one of their own at the negotiating table.

Practically speaking, the authors said: If Republicans want to pass legislation that would increase economic-based visas for foreign workers, they will find that a majority of Democrats are willing to drop one of their own policy priorities as part of a compromise. Across the aisle, however, for Democrats to pass legislation that would provide legal status to the unauthorized and a means to earn citizenship under certain conditions, less than half of Republicans are willing to compromise and drop one of their priorities to move the reforms ahead.

Related articles:

What would happen if immigration policies were based on majority opinion in the U.S.?

Coalition of evangelical Christians advocates third way on immigration reform

Biden administration rushing to strengthen DACA, official says

A bipartisan immigration bill has been introduced, but will it garner bipartisan support?

Panelists debate how to normalize immigration after ill effects of Trumpism

Original post:
New polling finds three views on immigration: Democrats, party-loyal Republicans or Trump-loyal Republicans - Baptist News Global

President BidenJoe BidenPutin backs up Belarus's Lukashenko amid international pressure Biden administration to reimpose sanctions on Belarus over diverted flight Senate passes resolution urging probe into COVID-19 origins MORE is under mounting pressure from both the left and right on immigration, the issue on which his polling numbers are worse than any other.

Progressives and human rights groups want to see Biden move faster to dismantle the last vestiges of former President TrumpDonald TrumpNY, NJ rail project gets key federal approval Senate meltdown reveals deepening partisan divide DHS formally bans family separations for illicit border crossings MOREs approach particularly in relation to a controversial measure that allows U.S. authorities to turn back would-be refugees on public health grounds.

But Republican politicians and conservative media are branding a sharp increase in attempted crossings of the southwestern border as Bidens border crisis. They say that the presidents approach is encouraging illegal migration attempts and thus ceding control of the nation's frontiers.

When Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro MayorkasAlejandro MayorkasBiden aims to speed review for families seeking asylum in US Mayorkas says TSA ready for Memorial Day travel: 'People will see lines' DHS secretary: 'We're taking a very close look at' vaccine passports MORE testified before the House Appropriations Committee Wednesday, he came under a hail of critical questioning from GOP lawmakers.

Rep. Chuck FleischmannCharles (Chuck) Joseph FleischmannThe Memo: Biden feels the heat from all sides on immigration Biden official defends Trump-era immigration policy Rep. Adriano Espaillat tests positive for COVID-19 MORE (R-Tenn.) asked Mayorkas whether the Biden administration was sending the message to one and all that this country will not enforce its immigration laws?

Rep. Steven PalazzoSteven McCarty PalazzoThe Memo: Biden feels the heat from all sides on immigration Ethics watchdog: 'Substantial' evidence GOP lawmaker improperly spent funds, misused position to help brother READ: The Republicans who voted to challenge election results MORE (R-Miss.) claimed that the White House had rolled out a big welcome mat for anyone who wanted to cross the border.

Mayorkas disputed both those claims. But there is little doubt that immigration has become a serious vulnerability for the administration.

A new Quinnipiac University pollreleased Wednesday found that just 35 percent of adults approve of how Biden is handling immigration issues. Fifty-two percent disapprove.

Those figures pose a startling contrast to Bidens marks for handling the COVID-19 pandemic. On that topic, 65 percent approve and 30 percent disapprove.

The immigration ratings are also way below his overall job approval score 48 percent approve and 40 percent disapprove of his performance so far.

The polls more granular findings show more red warning lights for Biden. Independent voters break decisively against him on immigration, with 52 percent disapproving of how he is handling the issue and just 29 percent approving. His disapproval from Republicans on the topic is sky-high at 91 percent. And more than1 in 5 Democrats, 22 percent, also disapprove.

It seems likely that Republicans and independents believe Biden is taking too lenient an approach, but some Democrats might well hold the opposite objection.

One key point of contention for liberals is called Title 42.

Title 42, which dates back to a 1944 law, allows authorities to deny refuge to asylum-seekers, or migrants, on public health grounds. It was invoked by Trump during the early days of the pandemic, purportedly to slow the spread of COVID-19. Its deployment is closely identified with Trump adviser Stephen MillerStephen MillerThe Memo: Biden feels the heat from all sides on immigration USDA to start loan forgiveness for thousands of farmers of color in June Federal judge says Biden restaurant fund discriminated against white male MORE, known for his ultra-hawkish attitude on immigration.

The Biden administration has not yet ceased to use Title 42 in the same way to the growing exasperation of liberals.

It was a concocted policy by Stephen Miller to close the border using the pandemic as cover, complained Frank Sharry, the executive director of Americas Voice, an organization that advocates for liberal immigration reform.

Sharry added: Whatever justification the White House feels for keeping Title 42 in place, given the political pressures they have come under, is behind us. More than 50 percent of the country is vaccinated, the level of infection is way down. The idea that this is a public health imperative is at this point losing its credibility.

Sharry insisted the administration ought to move with alacrity to discontinue the use of Title 42.

It is not the first time Biden has irked progressives. Just a few weeks ago, a decision to maintain a Trump-era cap on the number of refugees the nation would admit sparked furious backlash. The White House made a swift U-turn on that question.

The administrations jumpiness on the topic is one sign that it is feeling serious political pressure.

The latest figures from U.S. Customs and Border Protection show a huge spike in attempted crossings in the southwest.

The agency noted that encounters on the border numbered more than 170,000 in both March and April. Those numbers represent an increase of about 70 percent from 2019. (The numbers from 2020 were smaller still, though that is generally attributed to the effects of the pandemic.)

Conservatives complain that the shift in rhetoric from Trump to Biden has emboldened would-be migrants. Their ire is stoked further by reports like one which appeared in The Washington Post on Wednesday regarding ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

The Post noted that ICE had 6,000 officers but that they currently average one arrest every two months. The story also stated that there were fewer than 3,000 deportations carried out by ICE last month, which it termed the lowest level on record.

Mayorkas, at his Wednesday appearance on Capitol Hill, said he did not believe the average arrest statistic was correct.

Still, conservatives believe Biden is in practical terms acceding to the lefts desire to abolish ICE without explicitly admitting he is doing so. The Republican National Committee sent reporters an email on Wednesday asserting, Joe Biden is functionally abolishing ICE.

I dont know what else he can do to handcuff and shackle immigration enforcement, said Ira Mehlman, the media director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which supports stricter immigration laws and enforcement.

Mayorkas has basically said he doesnt want them to do very much, Mehlman added. If you have 6,000 officers averaging one arrest every two months, they become the equivalent of the Maytag repairman.

The politics of the immigration issue are fiercely complicated.

Polls show a clear majority of Americans favor legalizing the status of people brought to the United States as children without authorization the so-called Dreamers.

An ascendant left in the Democratic Party has pushed for greater liberalization generally, including decriminalizing unauthorized border crossings and providing government-run health insurance to people in the country illegally.

But those positions are far less popular than support for the Dreamers.

Meanwhile, immigration is a subject that garners enormous coverage from conservative media outlets and is at least perceived to help motivate GOP voters to turn up at the polls.

Brendan Steinhauser, a GOP strategist in Texas, said that for conservative voters in particular, without a doubt, border security is right up there [in importance] nationally, right behind jobs and the economy.

Politically, he added, I think it just does motivate the border security, enforce the law side more. It is more of a top issue and it moves them. On the progressive side of the Democratic Party, they worry about the humanitarian side in particular but they have other issues that are a little bit more important to them.

Leftists, for their part, lament that Democratic moderates are too resistant to trying to recast the underlying terms of the debate.

The duty of progressives is not simply to push for change on the details of the policy. It is to really articulate a different message and different vision of who immigrants are, said progressive strategist Jonathan Tasini. Progressives should believe in open borders. Immigrants have never been the threat that politicians want to portray them as. They have been used as a cover for bad economic policies that have nothing to do with immigration.

The White House is far away from even grappling with those questions.

For now, Biden would surely be content to thread the needle between the competing political pressures he faces.

So far, its proving extremely hard for him to do so.

The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.

Read more:
The Memo: Biden feels the heat from all sides on immigration | TheHill - The Hill