Connect with us

Un

Five Recent Times California Fought Trump on Immigration—and Why They All Were Mistakes

Published

on

  A recent Sacramento Bee article points out five times California fought President Trump on immigration within the last few years. Predictably, it omits the consequences of each of its actions. Below are how its elected and appointed officials created or could have created problems for the state and the nation: “A federal appeals court,

 

A recent Sacramento Bee article points out five times California fought President Trump on immigration within the last few years. Predictably, it omits the consequences of each of its actions. Below are how its elected and appointed officials created or could have created problems for the state and the nation:

“A federal appeals court in California ruled President Trump’s diversion of $2.5 billion from military construction projects to fund the Mexico border wall ‘unlawful.’”

Sabotaging funding for the southern border wall is reckless. Not only does southern California border Mexico, it also boasts the busiest land crossing in the entire world: The San Ysidro Port of Entry. With border walls proven to deter narcotic flows, illegal immigration, and dangerous criminals, it is absurd that the state stymied this funding. California has the largest illegal alien population in the United States—costing it more than $23 billion annually (the most of any U.S. state). These figures are likely to increase with its decision to block border wall funding.

“In May 2018, California fought against the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census when [Attorney General Xavier] Becerra filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration in the U.S. District Court in Northern California.”

The addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census would have not been unprecedented and could have brought numerous advantages to California and the rest of the nation. Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution requires the federal government to conduct a nationwide count of every person living in the United States every 10 years and questions involving citizenship occurred in surveys as early as 1820 and as recently as 1950.

Similarly, the American Community Survey (ACS) collects demographic data on an ongoing basis and asks about citizenship status. All of this data helps determine how many individuals, both legal and illegal, are living in each U.S. state. These figures ultimately determine the distribution of federal funding and electoral votes. In doing so, California undermined the integrity of the system under which federal funds are disbursed and electoral systems by opposing the inclusion of this question.

“California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a new law on Oct. 11, 2019 to phase out private, for-profit immigration detention facilities and prisons in the state by 2028.”

Eliminating immigration detentions jeopardizes public safety and undermines the nation’s judicial system. With a reduction in immigration detentions, public safety could become compromised as many of the detainees have been convicted of more serious crimes than immigration offenses.

Additionally, those released with a pending court date more often than not do not have valid asylum claims and are unlikely to show up to their hearing. With immigration detentions already nearly maxed out, it is irresponsible that its governor signed onto this law.

“The ‘public charge’ rule, proposed by the Trump administration in 2019, has had what advocates call a “chilling effect” among immigrant communities. The policy denies an immigrant’s green card or visa application if they are likely to be dependent on public assistance, like food stamps or other programs. Last summer, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Becerra filed a lawsuit to block the policy.”

Public charge laws have existed for centuries and are based on the rational principle that immigrants be self-sufficient. The nation must prioritize self-sufficiency and financial responsibility as most its social safety net is financed by taxpayers. Providing millions of dollars in benefits to people who are fiscal burdens to the nation would be careless. Today, almost two-thirds (63 percent) of all immigrant-led households use at least one welfare program – compared to only 35 percent of native-headed households. With welfare programs and illegal immigration costing the country hundreds of billions annually, finite resources must be safeguarded for other societal needs.

“A year after Trump’s inauguration, the president sought to increase vetting procedures for foreign nationals traveling to the U.S in 2017. Trump signed an executive order suspending foreign nationals from seven mostly Muslim countries, including Venezuela, from traveling to the country.”

The president’s travel ban addresses legitimate national security concerns identified by both his administration and those of his predecessor. Congress has delegated to the president clear, unambiguous authority to suspend entry to any alien or class of aliens deemed detrimental to the interests of the United States. Though the president’s order was eventually upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, California’s judicial activism could have compromised public safety and enabled harmful actors abroad the opportunity to wreak havoc on the nation.

As seen by these five actions, the state of California has misguided priorities. Enhancing public safety, reducing fiscal costs, and upholding the rule of law, should be on the top of the state’s interests or really any state’s interests, but instead, it has succumbed to the interests of the open borders lobby and the cosmopolitan agenda.

Source: Five Recent Times California Fought Trump on Immigration—and Why They All Were Mistakes

,

0 Shares
Continue Reading

BREAKING

PERM Recruitment Advertising

Published

on

By

IMMIGRATION ADVERTISING

PERM Recruitment Advertising made easy, just contact PERM Ads at https://PERM-Ads.com

Continue Reading

Un

Richard B. Alman, Founder, Recruiter Media: How a serial entrepreneur is digitizing PERM ads

Published

on

By

How a serial entrepreneur is digitizing PERM ads

Continue Reading

Un

The Green Card Process Through the Lens of a DMV Visit

Published

on

By

As an immigration attorney, I try to provide clients with a basic, yet insightful, understanding of various aspects of a complex immigration system. It’s not always easy, but I often find analogies to something commonplace can be helpful.  One analogy I’ve found to work well to explain the green card process beyond describing its mere,

As an immigration attorney, I try to provide clients with a basic, yet insightful, understanding of various aspects of a complex immigration system. It’s not always easy, but I often find analogies to something commonplace can be helpful.  One analogy I’ve found to work well to explain the green card process beyond describing its mere sequence of form filings likens the process to a visit to a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) office.

In my practice area of business immigration law, green card processes are mostly employment-based and involve the successive filing of a labor certification application, immigrant petition, and adjustment of status application (with the first not always required and the latter two sometimes eligible for concurrent filing). So I’ll refer to these types of filings in describing the analogy here.  But variations of the analogy may be equally applicable to other types of green card processes, such as those in which the aspiring permanent resident will apply for an immigrant visa overseas rather than adjustment of status within the United States, as well as those based on family relationships and those available to asylees and refugees.

The trappings of a visit to the DMV, no matter the state, may be familiar to you: the issuance of a waiting number determining your place in a queue, followed by a long wait for your number to be called at one of several counters to file required paperwork, followed yet again by a lengthy wait for your paperwork to be processed, and eventually – hopefully – approved without issue.  The counter at which you’ll be called, and the length of the corresponding queue (or maybe in some fortunate instances, the absence of one altogether), often depends on specific factors, such as the type of service you’re seeking.

Just as you’re issued a waiting number upon entry into a DMV office, aspiring permanent residents are issued a priority date when the first major filing in their green card process (either the labor certification application or immigrant petition) is submitted.  The priority date is the date this first filing is submitted and determines, once the immigrant petition is approved, the aspiring permanent resident’s place in any existing queue to apply for adjustment of status.

Similar to how you wait at the DMV for your number to be called to file your paperwork at the appropriate counter, aspiring permanent residents face varying wait times for their priority date to be “called” at a designated “counter” to apply for adjustment of status.  The “counter” in the green card process at which aspiring permanent residents must apply for adjustment of status is based on a combination of two main factors: their immigrant classification (which, when speaking with clients, I refer to as their “green card category”) and their country of chargeability (which I refer to as their country of birth).  Aside from some significant exceptions outside of the employment-based green card process,[1] the law limits the supply of green cards available each fiscal year.  Because the law allocates this limited supply based on a combination of both immigrant classification and country of chargeability, queues form at “counters” where the demand for green cards exceeds the available supply.  And the more severely demand exceeds supply, the longer the queue will be. This analogy helps to show why EB-2 and EB-3 immigrants born in India and China are often confronted with waits lasting many years for their priority date to be “called” at their designated counters,[2] while EB-2 and EB-3 immigrants born in most other countries often face no such queue.  In technical terms, the existence of a queue at a given “counter” means the availability of green cards associated with that counter’s classification and chargeability combination is “retrogressed.”  If there’s no queue, green card availability at that counter is “current.”

A visit to the DMV often entails a wait of several hours sitting and keeping watch of your designated counter at it serves the visitors who arrived before you until your own number is finally called.  Likewise, many aspiring permanent residents monitor the often plodding, month-to-month movement of “cut-off dates” in the Bureau of Consular Affairs’ monthly Visa Bulletins for the designated “counter” at which they must apply for adjustment of status.[3]  The Visa Bulletin for a given month contains various charts showing whether a queue for filing an adjustment of status application exists for any classification and chargeability combination, and if so, how long the queue is.  Combinations for which there is no queue are assigned a “C” notation, indicating that green card availability is current and that the adjustment of status application can thus be filed at any time that month, including in concurrence with an immigrant petition if it has not already been approved, and assuming any prerequisite labor certification has been granted. Combinations for which there is a queue, and for which green card availability is thus retrogressed, are denoted by a “cut-off date,” with older dates reflecting longer queues.  Aspiring permanent residents seeking to adjust status at a “counter” at which green card availability is retrogressed can track their place in the queue by comparing their priority date with the applicable cut-off date each month.  Priority dates that fall before the applicable cut-off date in a given month are those that have been “called,” indicating that much like counters at which green card availability is current, an adjustment of status application can be filed at any time that month, including in concurrence with an immigrant petition if it has not already been approved, and assuming again that any prerequisite labor certification has been granted.

Like processing of paperwork filed at a counter at the DMV, processing of an adjustment of status application may take a long time.  But eventually – hopefully – the application is approved without issue.  And unlike a visit to the DMV, having qualified counsel during the green card process can make all the difference in one’s chance of success.

[1] For example, “immediate relatives” (spouses and children of US citizens, and parents of US citizens if the citizen is at least 21 years old) are exempt from annual numerical limits on green card availability. INA 201(b)(2)(A)(i).
[2] Aspiring permanent residents for whom the queue for applying for adjustment of status involves a wait of several years, such as EB-2 and EB-3 immigrants born in India and China, commonly change jobs or employers in the course of their wait. Such a change can require a restart of the green card process since employment-based green card processes are generally job and employer specific.  But to allow aspiring permanents residents who change jobs or employers to keep their place in queue, the law permits them to retain their priority date under certain conditions if they are the beneficiary of a previously approved EB-1, EB-2, or EB-3 immigrant petition, and likewise become the beneficiary of an approved EB-1, EB-2, or EB-3 immigrant petition based on their new job or employer. 8 CFR 204.5(e). 
[3] US Citizenship and Immigration Service also publishes monthly updates indicating whether to use the Visa Bulletin’s Dates for Filing charts or its Final Action Dates charts, to determine whether an adjustment of status application may be filed.

Source: The Green Card Process Through the Lens of a DMV Visit

,

Continue Reading

PERM Recruitment Advertising

PA-250-300

Immigration Links

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2020 IMMIGRATION REFORM NEWS