Mediaboss Marketing

Most Americans are aghast when they hear that the government does not know how many foreigners or who is staying illegally in the country after entering with a visa. The government knows who is entering thats what those lines at the airports passport control are doing. But there is no similar collection of reliable data on departing travelers that allows the exit data to be compared with the entry data to identify those staying beyond their authorized stay.

Although this fact is not generally known to the public, it is known to Congress. When Congress enacted a package of reforms in 1996 (Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act ) as urged by the findings of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, the Clinton administration was instructed to develop a system for collecting the departure information in a way that could be reliably compared to entry data so that policy makers would learn the magnitude of the overstay problem and the profile of the overstayers in terms of type of visa, country of origin, and biometric data. The idea was that if visa entry scofflaws were concentrated among a group such as young single persons entering with a temporary work visa or a student visa and from a particular country, the visa issuance process in that country could be tightened up. Similarly, if it were found that a disproportionate number of scofflaws had been issued a visa by a specific consular officer, that consular officer could be counseled to tighten issuance standards.

But, aside from a few tentative steps to explore the means to capture reliable exit data, no progress was made in complying with the mandate from Congress.

A new impetus was generated by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on our country. It was revealed that five of the 19 terrorists on the hijacked planes were visa overstayers and that shoddy visa issuance procedures in Saudi Arabia had enabled that attack. With heightened concern for national security, Congress again mandated action in the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. It again ordered the newly created Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to implement an automated biometric entry-exit matching system.

But, more than a dozen years later, it still has not been accomplished. One notable setback occurred when airlines refused to accept any responsibility for doing anything other than scanning machine-readable passports at their reservation desks in airports. This left the loophole that the traveler might not be the same person to whom the passport was issued. DHS currently is again attempting to enlist airlines to cooperate with it in the exit data collection.

Congress has continued to be apprised of the failure to fulfill the mandate it gave the administration in reports from the Government Accountability Office, other reports and in testimony. A further prodding from Congress came in the Budget Act of 2016 when DHS was given earmarked funding for a pilot project to collect the biometric exit data.

It is not that DHS has been entirely ignoring the law. It has executed a series of narrowly-focused tests that have accomplished better understanding of the difficulty in collecting reliable data. And, DHS now reports that it is readying a partial data collection system for departing travelers by next year. However, reviewing the string of failures since 1996, it is premature to be hopeful. DHS also delivered its first report to Congress on what it believed was the number of foreign travelers who failed to depart by the end of their authorized stay during fiscal year 2015 in two categories travelers for business and pleasure (i.e. tourism), Those visa categories account for a large majority of arriving foreigners, but not necessarily the most likely to overstay their admission period. That report identified 527,127 potential scofflaws. That calculation, however, is not definitive, and it is only partial, but it demonstrates that the issue is substantial.

Anyone wanting more on the history of this national security flaw and current efforts underway by DHS to comply with the law will find it in the latest report of the GAO (February, 2017) here.

View post:
Snail's Pace Towards Controlling Against Visa Scofflaws - ImmigrationReform.com (blog)

An immigration reform bill was introduced in the Senate earlier this month. Normally, that would be an event with about as much news value and as the sun rising in the east.

But there is something different about the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act, sponsored by Senators Tom CottonTom CottonCotton: Special prosecutor talk is 'getting ahead of ourselves' Finally, an immigration reform bill that tackles family migration Perez to hit the Sunday shows following election victory MORE (R-Ark.) and David Perdue (R-Ga.). The bill actually lays down some clear public interest objectives for U.S. immigration policy and recognizes the American people as the primary stakeholders in their nations immigration policy.

Immigrants selected for their job skills currently comprise only about 6 percent of the current immigrant flow. Significantly reducing overall immigration and eliminating preferences for extended family members would ensure that those selected to come to the U.S. would be more likely to succeed, and would complement, rather than compete with, American workers.

The RAISE Act reflects the recommendations of a bipartisan commission that reviewed every aspect of U.S. immigration policy. That commission, chaired by the late civil rights leader and Texas congresswoman Barbara Jordan, issued its final report 20 years ago. The commissions blueprint for immigration reform was endorsed by President Bill ClintonBill ClintonFinally, an immigration reform bill that tackles family migration 5 ways politics could steal the show at Oscars Clinton: Dems will be 'strong, unified' with Perez MORE and by congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle.

The core recommendations of the Jordan Commission included ending extended family chain migration and shifting the selection criteria to favor people who possess skills that are most beneficial to the country.

Among its key provisions, the RAISE Act would eliminate all immigration entitlements outside of the nuclear family (spouse and minor children) of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents, ending the long and ever-growing list of relatives who are now eligible to come here, regardless of their likelihood to succeed in this country.

Elderly dependent parents of U.S. citizens would still be permitted to come to the United States on temporary visas, but sponsors would be required to guarantee support and health insurance.

Under the RAISE Act, the 1960s concept of family chain migration a form of codified nepotism would be ended in a way that is not only beneficial to the nation, but also to the integrity of the immigration process.

Other relatives of green card holders and U.S. citizens, who once constituted a significant portion of the immigrant flow, would be free to compete on their own for entry. By eliminating these needless preference categories that contain the seeds of their own growth, experts say that we will be able to reach the Jordan Commissions target of 550,000 immigrants a year within a decade a level that would still be at the high end of historic norms.

American workers who have lost job opportunities and suffered wage erosion as a result of decades of irrational immigration policies would be the biggest beneficiaries of this legislation. For the first time in generations, immigration would be treated like every other public policy: one that maximizes the public good, while minimizing the harm to workers and taxpayers.

Other recent attempts to enact immigration reform have been centered on granting amnesty to millions of people who broke the law and making our already dysfunctional immigration process even bigger (and, likely, more dysfunctional). Not surprisingly, those efforts were rejected by the American people, who recognized that almost nothing in those bills protected or promoted their core interests.

The decline of the American middle class and immigration were the two issues that dominated this last election cycle. The RAISE Act responsibly addresses both of those concerns almost precisely as recommended by the bipartisan Jordan Commission in 1997. That constitutes not only real news, but real reform of our immigration policy.

Dan Stein is president of Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

See more here:
Finally, an immigration reform bill that tackles family migration - The Hill (blog)

In 2013, the Senate passed a bipartisan -- do you remember that word? -- immigration reform bill that provided a pathway for undocumented immigrants to earn their way to citizenship.

The bill included tough new border security measures along the Mexican border: More fencing and thousands of more border patrol agents.

That negotiated legislation, which passed on a 68-32 count, garnered 14 Republican votes.

People like McCain and Rubio and Graham and Flake and Corker and Hatch and Ayotte.

The pathway would be no easy road; the requirements could have taken 13 years to fulfill.

But Republicans buried the bill in the House where bipartisan legislation generally goes to die.

Now, the Senate too is hopelessly split by partisanship and party, and the White House no longer is open to immigration reform.

In view of today's sharp division and fiery rhetoric, it's startling to recall there was such an opportunity just four years ago.

Lincoln Catholic Bishop James Conley spoke up powerfully about illegal or undocumented immigrants in an op-ed published in the Catholic Southern Nebraska Register this weekend and posted on Facebook.

"Our immigration system is broken because overhauling it would require that political leaders on all sides put aside partisan posturing and incendiary rhetoric in order to reach meaningful and comprehensive agreements," the bishop wrote.

"Surely, our government, in wisdom and creativity and human decency, can find just means of addressing the crime of illegal immigration without severing marriages, sending children to foster care and returning people to situations of abject hopelessness," he wrote.

"Surely, if America is truly great, it can respond to these challenges with ingenuity and virtue and charity," Conley stated.

"I stand in solidarity with immigrant families living in fear of what might be coming for them.

"I stand in solidarity with American citizens looking for real security instead of political showmanship and rhetoric.

"I stand in solidarity with those politicians and law enforcement agents working to find fair and humane solutions to complex problems.

"I stand in solidarity with those living in poverty or danger seeking some promise of safety and opportunity for their children.

"As Catholics," he wrote, "we must continue to call for real, comprehensive, safe and just immigration reform.

"But we cannot accept the panacea of mass detention and deportation," Conley wrote.

Guessing the end game at the Legislature.

Who can tell how this ends?

Tax cuts -- property and/or income -- remain the explosive political issue.

Rural interests appear to be drawing a deep line in the sand this time, calling for an undivided focus on meaningful property tax reduction.

Hanging in the air, whispered in text messages but undeclared, is the possibility -- but not the certainty -- of political consequences if that does not happen.

Legislative seats are in play next year and so is the governorship and rural Nebraska dominates statewide Republican primary elections.

Sen. Ben Sasse's remarks to a Lincoln Chamber of Commerce coffee gathering last week were the latest reminder of how gifted this guy is.

In introducing him, Chamber executive vice president Bruce Bohrer described Sasse as "a walking think tank."

Sasse walked the crowd through a broad sweep of history, centered on the present and cast an eye on the future, all of that delivered seamlessly and with hardly a pause.

The top headlines from JournalStar.com. Delivered at 11 a.m. Monday-Friday.

It was the kind of performance that challenges all of us to up our game.

Police officers did a professional job of keeping a lid on the demonstration that confronted Sen. Deb Fischer in Lincoln last week.

They respected the right of assembly, calmly and patiently talked protesters out of the Grand Manse building after they became disruptive and were blocking the hall, and did so with no threat or show of force.

No confrontation; no escalation; no injuries, no arrests; noisy, but no harm done: that's an A-plus in crowd control.

Jane Kleeb was featured on MSNBC during the election of a new Democratic national chairman in Atlanta on Saturday.

Kleeb, the new chair of Nebraska's Democratic Party, supported Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, who lost in a narrow contest with Tom Perez.

"We are in the streets, energized and progressive," Kleeb said, and Ellison would have been the bridge to connect activists with the party apparatus.

Kleeb told MSNBC she is ready to work with Perez.

"Of course," she said. "But it's his responsibility to build a bridge, not mine."

* A view from the west in this paragraph in the North Platte Bulletin about a town hall meeting with Sen. Mike Groene: "It turned out there was no need for law enforcement even though some Groene critics from eastern Nebraska were said to be in the audience."

* Baseball is in the air.

Visit link:
Don Walton: Immigration reform was within reach - Lincoln Journal Star

Will immigration reform stifle recruitment of foreign talent? New York Post If enacted, the sweeping immigration measures including cutting back on coveted professional HB-1 visas for prized workers could undermine productivity and income statements in US financial services, Street executives say, as talented ... and more »

Read this article:
Will immigration reform stifle recruitment of foreign talent? - New York Post

The Trump administration this week released a new set of orders that could greatly increase the number of deportations of undocumented immigrants in the United States.

The White House has tamped down suggestions that the guidance will lead to massive deportations, but immigrant communities have been greatly alarmed.

Here are 5 questions surrounding the immigration guidance from Trumps Department of Homeland Security.

What happens to the dreamers?

DHS says the rules dont touch Obamas Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), which allows high-achieving immigrants who were brought to the country illegally as kids to remain and work without threat of deportation.

In a conference call with congressional officesTuesday, officials from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said DACA beneficiaries wont be pursued, per se, but if a DACA recipient happens to be in the vicinity of another apprehension, that DACA recipient may be apprehended, a Democratic aide saidThursday, relaying ICEs message.

Theres no priority if everyone is prioritized for removal, the aide said.

At least one such case has already occurred this month in Seattle, where Daniel Ramirez Medina, twice enrolled in DACA, was detained by ICE agents who had come to his home to arrest his father. Ramirez has since sued.

Stephen Legomsky, former chief counsel of at DHSs Citizenship and Immigration Services branch, said its anyones guess what the Trump administration will do with DACA.

DHS could end new enrollments but continue the program and renew existing work permits when they expire after two years.

Terminating the program and revoking unexpired work permits seems unlikely, Legomsky predicted, because of the legal steps that would be required.

With more than 700,000 current DACA-holders, that process would be extremely labor-intensive, said Legomsky, now a professor emeritus at Washington University School of Law.

But Trump is getting plenty of pressure from conservative hardliners to kill the program altogether. And his newly appointed attorney general, former-Sen. Jeff SessionsJeff SessionsDem 2020 hopefuls lead pack in opposing Trump Cabinet picks Five tough questions for Trump on immigration Issa: Sessions should recuse himself from any Russia probes MORE (R-Ala.), was among its fiercest critics.

Are deportations about to spike?

The new DHS rules, by empowering immigration officials to remove virtually anyone in the country illegally while encouraging the help of local law enforcers, create the potential for a massive spike in deportations. But theres disagreement about what the practical effect of those changes will be.

One restricting factor mentioned by all sides is that DHS simply doesnt have the funding to find, process and remove 11 million people.

Still, Democrats and other immigration reform advocates who howled when Obamas deportation numbers rose to a record-setting 435,000 in 2013 fear the figure will jump much higher under Trump.

Thats largely because the new rules broadly expand the definition of criminality meriting prioritization to include, not only those convicted of crimes, but also those charged or having committed acts which constitute a chargeable criminal offense. That could mean that anyone admitting after-the-fact to even minor crimes say, driving without a license could quickly become a target.

Democrats also think Trumps rhetoric suggests muscle could be placed behind the orders.

While former President George W. Bush also established rules dictating that those merely charged with a crime were prospective ICE targets, he didnt express an intent to deport 11 million people, the Democratic aide said.

The way the Trump administration operates, they want big numbers. They want to show big things, huge things.

Roy Beck, head of NumbersUSA, which advocates for a reduction in immigration, said that while Trump is pushing a very accelerated and assertive deportation effort, theres no indication the administration is interested in mass round-ups. He expects the focus to be on those who have already been through removal proceedings, but not yet deported, and those who have been convicted of crimes. Combined, Beck puts that number at around 2 million.

You could do mass deportations very easy. You just start going to the various day-labor cites in any city and you could just sweep up busloads, he said. But I do not believe thats going to be happening.

I think that well be lucky to see 500,000 people removed this year, Beck added. Its not that easy, when youre not doing mass roundups.

Will Congress fund ramped-up enforcement efforts?

Funding has constantly limited the scale of the governments enforcement efforts, and the trend will almost certainly persist under Trump.

Indeed, ICEs 2016 budget was $5.9 billion, of which $3.2 billion was dedicated to enforcement and removal operations figures that still stand as part of the current continuing resolution (CR).

Republicans last year proposed a slight uptick in 2017 spending for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to cover, among other things, 100 new enforcement priority officers. But that figure pales to the 10,000 new ICE officers Trump wants to hire subject to available resources, the DHS memo clarifies.

The CBPs overall budget of $11.3 billion comes nowhere near the funding needed to perform mass deportations. A 2015 analysis conducted by the American Action Forum, a conservative think tank, estimated the cost to apprehend, detain, process and deport 11 million people would run between $400 billion and $600 billion.

Lawmakers could face pressure to give Trump the resources he needs to make good on his deportation promises, but they will also hear from fiscal hawks who want to rein in deficit spending under a unified GOP government.

Will Mexico cooperate?

Trumps bellicose approach has soured relations between the U.S. and Mexico which could cripple the administrations deportation strategy, which leans heavily on the cooperation of its southern neighbor.

A key part of Trumps plan involves returning migrants who cross the southern border, regardless of their nationality, back to Mexico to await hearings on their asylum claims. Such cases have spiked in recent years as violence and corruption in Central America have prodded thousands of migrants northward.

Legomsky said Mexico has no legal obligation to accept the return of the many deportees from elsewhere, and even deporting Mexicans puts a proof-of-origin burden on U.S. officials.

Since many arrive without identification, [Mexico] could legitimately refuse to accept many individuals whom the U.S. asserts but cant prove are Mexican nationals, he said.

The administration acknowledged in the ICE conference call that DHS does not now have the right to push deportees into Mexico, said the Democratic aide familiar with the conversation. And Mexican leaders have threatened to raise their concerns with the United Nations.

I want to say clearly and emphatically that the government of Mexico and the Mexican people do not have to accept provisions that one government unilaterally wants to impose on the other, Luis Videgaray, Mexicos Foreign Minister, saidWednesday.

AThursdaymeeting between Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, DHS Secretary John Kelly and Mexican officials did not seem to thaw the ice.

Trump has vowed to use a renegotiation of the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to force Mexicos hand. But Legomsky warned that Mexico has similar leverage to retaliate, both by adopting punitive import taxes on U.S. goods and by scaling back law enforcement efforts that have stemmed the flow of drug and human trafficking to the U.S. border.

Given the anti-American sentiment that Trump has already whipped up in Mexico, and the additional anger that mass deportations would engender, any or all of those retaliatory measures are politically realistic, he said.

Will it backfire on Republicans?

A tough law-and-order approach to immigration was the ballast of Trumps successful presidential run, and the effort to make good on his campaign promise has energized the conservative base. The strategy is particularly appealing in the white, working class communities that have suffered disproportionately from globalization and flocked to Trumps vow to put Americans first.

But there are also risks for the Republicans who embrace a strict enforcement strategy, especially if its seen to dismantle families within a growing ethnic electorate. Democrats have won the Hispanic vote by an overwhelming margin in the last three presidential cycles, and Republican leaders have scrambled for ways to narrow the divide.

After Obamas resounding win in 2012, GOP leaders drafted an autopsy report which, in part, urged the party to emphasize a tone of tolerance and respect toward Hispanic communities. The study was done at the request of Reince Priebus, then-chairman of the Republican National Committee and now Trumps chief of staff.

Democrats are already pouncing on the new deportation rules as evidence that Republicans have rejected their own advice.

This is not about smart politics for the Republican Party, said the Democratic aide. This is about a small group of ideologues that are trying to ram through an agenda while the Republicans have the House and the Senate and the presidency.

Read this article:
Five tough questions for Trump on immigration - The Hill