Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden on Tuesday ordered a review of asylum processing at the U.S.-Mexico border and the immigration system as he seeks to undo some of former President Donald Trumps hardline policies.

Biden also created a task force to reunite migrant families who were separated at the border by Trumps 2018 zero tolerance strategy.

We are going to work to undo the moral and national shame of the previous administration that literally, not figuratively, ripped children from the arms of their families, Biden said, as he signed the three immigration-related executive orders at the White House.

The executive orders called for a dizzying array of reviews and reports that could trigger policy changes in the weeks and months ahead, but provide limited immediate relief to immigrants barred by Trump-era rules.

Immigration advocates have urged the new Democratic administration to quickly undo Trumps policies but Biden aides say they need time to unravel the many layers of immigration restrictions and to put in place more migrant-friendly systems.

Its not going to happen overnight, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said on Tuesday.

The cautious strategy reflects the tightrope Biden is walking to reverse hardline Trump policies while simultaneously trying to prevent a surge in illegal immigration. Biden opponents could also derail or slow down his agenda with lawsuits if his administration moves too quickly and fails to follow proper procedures.

In a sign of the wary approach, Bidens executive orders on Tuesday did not repeal an order known as Title 42, which was issued under Trump to stop the spread of the coronavirus and allows U.S. authorities to expel almost all people caught crossing the border illegally.

He did, however, mandate a review of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), a Trump program that ordered 65,000 asylum seekers to wait in Mexico for their U.S. court hearings.

The Biden administration has stopped adding people to the program but has not yet outlined how it will process the claims of those already in it.

Across the border in Mexico, migrants enrolled in MPP said they were anxious for news about Bidens plans for the program.

I dont understand why he doesnt just say what hes going to do, said Cuban asylum seeker Yuri Gonzalez, who has been waiting for over a year in Ciudad Juarez.

Chad Wolf, former acting U.S. Department of Homeland Security secretary under Trump, said in an interview that halting the MPP program was a mistake because it had been an effective deterrent to illegal immigration.

If you do have a surge (of migrants), youre taking one of your tools off the table, he said in reference to the program.

Michelle Brane, a senior director with the New York City-based Womens Refugee Commission, said advocates had been hoping for Bidens orders to be more immediate and operational, but that they would wait and see what concrete steps U.S. immigration agencies take to implement the directives.

The tone of Bidens orders on Tuesday differed dramatically from Trumps incendiary immigration rhetoric depicting asylum seekers as a security threat or an economic drain on the United States.

Securing our borders does not require us to ignore the humanity of those who seek to cross them, reads the order dealing with asylum.

But opposition from Republicans continues and lawsuits by conservative groups could potentially slow down Bidens agenda. A federal judge last week temporarily blocked one of his first immigration moves - a 100-day pause on many deportations - after the Republican-led state of Texas sought an injunction.

Trump won the presidency in 2016 while making border security a major theme of his campaign. If Biden fails to prevent surges in illegal immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border, he could give ammunition to Republicans in the 2022 congressional elections, said Sarah Pierce, a policy analyst with the Washington-based Migration Policy Institute.

This is the thing that rallied Donald Trump supporters, she said.

Biden, on the other hand, pledged in his 2020 election campaign to move quickly to reunite parents and children separated at the southern border and the task force set up on Tuesday is aimed at fulfilling that promise.

However, it will face a daunting challenge in trying to track down the parents of more than 600 children who remain separated, according to a January court filing in a related case. The children are living with relatives or in foster care, an attorney representing plaintiffs in the litigation told Reuters.

The task force will be led by Alejandro Mayorkas, one of the senior officials said on Monday. The U.S. Senate on Tuesday confirmed Mayorkas as the new head of the Department of Homeland Security, the first Latino and immigrant to hold that position.

Bidens executive orders on Tuesday also called for a review of Trumps so-called public charge rule, which makes it harder for poorer immigrants to obtain permanent residency in the United States.

The review is expected to start the process to rescind it, according to two people familiar with the plan.

Bidens asylum-focused order called on U.S. agencies to address drivers of migration in Central America, expand legal pathways to the United States and consider ending Trump-era asylum pacts with Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras.

After the order, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a written statement the United States intended to suspend and terminate the agreements, which sought to allow asylum seekers from other countries to be sent to those nations.

Reporting by Ted Hesson and Steve Holland in Washington; Additional reporting by Laura Gottesdiener in Monterrey, Mexico, and Jonathan Landay in Washington; Editing by Ross Colvin, Alistair Bell, Rosalba OBrien and Gerry Doyle

Read the original here:
Biden to issue executive orders on asylum, legal immigration, separated families - Reuters

This is one in a series of articles looking at the issues being tackled by the new Biden administration, from the perspective of the average American. Our focus here is immigration, one of the central themes of Donald Trump's presidential campaign in 2016 and the focus of high-profile policy actions taken throughout his four years in office. Within hours of Joe Biden's inauguration, however, the newly elected president began the process of reversing a number of those policies with executive orders of his own.

Interestingly, despite Biden's focus on immigration, the data make it clear that the issue of immigration is no longer nearly as top of mind for Americans as it has been at other times in recent history. My colleague Jeff Jones did an excellent job in July 2019 reviewing the data which at that point showed a record-high 27% of Americans mentioning immigration as the nation's most important problem. This was only the fourth time in Gallup history that immigration topped the list, propelled to the forefront of public consciousness that year by concerns over reports of large numbers of refugees moving up from Central America toward the U.S.

Now, almost no Americans think first of immigration when asked to name the nation's top problem, reflecting the overriding impact of the pandemic, problems with the nation's governance in this time of transition and the pending second impeachment trial of Donald Trump. This is a continuation of what we have seen now for a number of months; only 1% or 2% of Americans have mentioned immigration as the top problem since last April. I don't think this means immigration has ceased to be a concern for the average American, but rather that it is an issue whose salience waxes and wanes depending on how much it is in the news and on how much other issues dominate the news landscape.

Clearly, the issue is in a "wane" phase at this point, even when Americans are asked about it explicitly. Pew Research recently rated the importance of immigration policy as part of a list of concerns, with immigration coming in 14th out of the 19 issues tested in terms of Americans saying it should be a top priority for the president and Congress to address this year -- so designated by just 39% of Americans. That is far below the 80% and 78% priority ratings given to strengthening the economy and dealing with the coronavirus situation, respectively.

Nevertheless, despite immigration's lack of status as a front-burner issue for Americans, Biden has moved ahead with rapidity in operationalizing his plans to countermand Trump's immigration-related policies. So far, most of what Biden has done seems to fit well with majority public opinion, highlighting the evident fact that much of what Trump did in relationship to immigration -- while appealing to parts of his political base -- was out of sync with the attitudes of the average American.

The Border Wall. Biden, on the day he was inaugurated, ordered a pause in border wall construction, rescinding the national emergency declaration Trump used to divert billions from the Department of Defense for the wall's construction. Biden has ordered a review to decide what to do going forward relating to barriers along the nation's border with Mexico. This came just days after Trump himself made a gesture of support for his wall project, taking his last official trip as president (except for his final flight to Florida on Jan. 20) to the Texas-Mexico border to applaud and reinforce the wall's construction. American public opinion is clearly on Biden's side on this issue; Gallup and a wide variety of surveys done by other organizations have consistently shown opposition to building the wall.

Muslim Travel Ban. Biden also quickly issued a proclamation revoking the ban on travelers from several majority-Muslim countries, put in place by Trump as one of his first official actions four years earlier. Again, Biden ordered a review to determine what should come next in terms of adjusting the country's visa policies. There hasn't been a lot of public opinion surveying about the ban in recent years, but attitudes, while mixed, tilted negative when the ban was first announced by Trump.

DACA. Biden also issued an executive memorandum calling on the Department of Homeland Security to "preserve and fortify" DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) -- the Obama-era policy that deferred the deportation of certain undocumented immigrants who were brought into the U.S. as children. Biden also urged Congress to create a pathway to citizenship for the so-called "Dreamers" and others living in the country illegally. These actions too fit with the views of the average American. One of the consistent findings from Gallup and other polling organizations over the years has been support for allowing children brought into the United States illegally to become legal residents and citizens. The majority of Americans also more generally support a pathway to citizenship for those living here without legal documentation.

Illegal Immigration. All of this is not to say that Americans are indifferent to illegal immigration. They are not. Americans evince strong support for such things as increased Border Patrol funding and increased security along the border with Mexico (but as noted, not building a wall).

Legal Immigration. We also know that the average American is positive about the general idea of legal immigration into this country. Last summer, Gallup noted that for the first time since we began asking about immigration levels in 1965, more Americans said that immigration should be increased rather than decreased, while a very slight plurality said it should remain the same. In the same poll, 77% said that immigration is a good thing for the country today -- by one percentage point, the highest in this trend. Plus, new Gallup polling shows the percentage of Americans who are both dissatisfied with the level of immigration into this country and want less immigration is at its lowest point in Gallup's 20-year history of asking the question. These data suggest that Americans want their elected representatives to take into account the positive impact of immigration on the nation as well as its downsides and negatives.

Clearly, if the views of the average American held sway, the president and Congress would figure out how to develop the type of comprehensive immigration plan that has for so long been a topic of legislative discussion, dealing simultaneously with all of the disparate pieces of the immigration puzzle. This is, in my way of thinking, similar to discussions on infrastructure -- a concept widely accepted as a priority focus for new legislation, but one about which our elected representatives can't seem to get anything done.

Biden's call to review the context for immigration policies before rushing to recommend legislation seems to fit well with this focus on a comprehensive plan. Immigration is a very complex issue -- encompassing policies on legal entry into the country, efforts to stop illegal entry, and the great challenge of dealing with those who are already here but who are undocumented. The idea of pausing to look at all of this together and developing a way forward that takes it all into account in some type of rational way, rather than enacting scattershot policies in isolation, seems to be well in line with the sentiments of the average American.

Continued here:
The Average American Weighs in on Immigration - Gallup Poll

The property of a resident in Chios was looted by an illegal immigrant who broke into his fenced farm in Vassilionikos, stole three chickens and two goats, killed them and sold the meat to other illegals, Proto Thema reported.

The theft and slaughter of the animals took place on Wednesday morning and the illegal immigrant was arrested on the same day by police officers of the islands Immigration Management Department.

In his possession there were a few carcasses, a 16cm knife he used to kill the animals and 230 euros, which is estimated to have been the price for the sale of the meat.

A case was filed against him for animal theft, animal murder and weapon violations.

He was taken to the prosecutor of the Court of First Instance of Chios.

Read this article:
Illegal Immigrant In Chios Stole Animals, Killed Them And Sold The Meat - Greek City Times - GreekCityTimes.com

Undocumented immigrants have not been eligible for stimulus checks because they do not have social security numbers.

WASHINGTON, D.C., USA Update:The bill passed in the Senate on a bipartisan vote of 58-42. The bill blocks stimulus payments from undocumented immigrants but will have no impact on payment eligibility for mixed-status families.

Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Senator Todd Young of Indiana introduced an amendmentto the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget that would prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving stimulus payments in the future.

Currently, the bill seems unwarranted as undocumented immigrants have not received stimulus checks because they do not have social security numbers. House members have pushed for relief funds for undocumented immigrants in the past. The Biden Administration's plan for another round of $1,400 stimulus payments does not include payments to undocumented immigrants.

According to our Verify team, family members of undocumented immigrants are eligible for these payments, so long as they qualify. They must be citizens or green card holders, with a social security number to collect stimulus checks.

Stimulus payments were first authorized under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act to help provide relief to Americans and spur economic activity in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

The Biden administration shouldnt reward illegal immigrants for breaking our laws by giving them check," Senator Cotton said. "Instead of courting foreigners with U.S. taxpayer funds, President Biden should use that money to aid American schools, businesses, and families.

If passed, the amendment would ensure money only goes to American residents.

Economic Impact Payments were intended to provide a lifeline to Americans struggling to make ends meet during the coronavirus pandemic," said Senator Young. "They were not intended for people who are in our country illegally. Our amendment would ensure that people who break our immigration laws arent receiving taxpayer-funded handouts.

Text of the amendment is available here.

Read this article:
Senators introduce bill that blocks undocumented immigrants from getting future stimulus payments - WTSP.com

How does the proposed Biden amnesty for illegal aliens compare with the nation's only full-scale legalization program, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of the 1980s?

First, and foremost, the concept of control or enforcement is totally missing, as my colleague, Mark Krikorian, has pointed out.

Second, it would be a much larger program, covering virtually everyone in illegal status, a group of some 11 million, as opposed to the roughly three million who secured legalization in the earlier program.

Third, the proposed program, like IRCA,is a multi-part entity, putting some populations on the road to citizenship more quickly than others.

I saw a lot of IRCA because the Ford Foundation asked me to monitor it, which I did for the better part of two years, both here in Washington and in a number of states from here to California. I also had some contact with the main authors of the program in Congress, Sen. Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.) and Rep. Roman Mazzoli (D-Ky.). The staff and the leadership of the old Immigration and Naturalization Service were very cooperative inour research. (The report, published in 1989, was entitled "The U.S. Alien Legalization Program". Another 1989 report I co-authored on IRCA was Decision Factories: The Role of the Regional Processing Facilities in the Alien Legalization Program, for the Administrative Conference of the United States.)

I am basing the following comments on a document headed "1/14/21 STAFF DRAFT - PENDING REVIEW & APPROVAL", which presumably reflects the new administration's thinking of that date, and which may have changed since then. It is a 59-page section-by-section summary of the proposed "America's Citizenship Act of 2021" (ACA/21). A shorter fact sheet on the bill was briefly postedthe White House websiteand has since disappeared; we preserved it here.

Fraud. In the earlier program, fraud was rampant and largely out of control, notably in the part of the program that dealt with farmworkers. It turned out that an alien could game the Special Agricultural Worker (SAW) part of the IRCA program much more easily than the other provisions of the act. Toward the end of the program, INS largely gave up any real effort to deny fraudulent SAW applications, as I noted in an analysis I did for CIS several years ago.

If the proposed bill is passed with the current language intact, fraud will not be a problem this time around.

Is that because we are now dealing with a better class of illegal aliens? Not at all. The difference will come because there will be no need for fraud, as virtually every unauthorized alien in the nation will be eligible for getting on the road to citizenship.

Under the main provision of IRCA, which was signed into law by President Reagan on November 6, 1986, an applicant had to prove residence in the nation since January 1, 1982; much of the illegal alien population had arrived after that date. The requirements were looser for the SAW applicants.

In contrast, in the proposed bill, only the illegals who have arrived since January 1, 2021, will not be eligible, so few will be tempted to file fraudulent applications.

So, on one hand, there will be a cleaner, easier process this time, but at the cost of adding 11 million people to our legal population, all without an enforcement program that would prevent the arrivals of millions more illegals.

Some Noncitizens Are More Equal than Others. The ACA/21 proposal establishes two major classes for legalization purposes. All who were here on January 1, 2021, are eligible for lawful prospective immigrant status (LPI), which puts one on an eight-year-road to citizenship. Those in the other group, of which there are three subclasses agricultural workers (legal or illegal), Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA), and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) can secure lawful permanent resident (LPR) status, that denoted by the holding of the green card. The latter benefit (LPR) is better than the former one (LPI) and can lead to citizenship in five years.

Let's look at the different requirements for the three subprograms, and note how the handful of aliens who managed to enlist in the military are treated or how symbolism in this provision prevails over common sense

Agricultural Workers. Government routinely bows to the interests of Big Agriculture; there is, after all, what appears to be a permanent flaw in our democracy: the over-representation of rural America in the Senate. So it is no surprise that there is a special section (1105) of the proposed bill for farmworkers, just as there was with IRCA.

The relevant section, 245F(a) states:

Requirements for Adjustment of Status Under This Section. Permits the Secretary [of Homeland Security] to adjust to LPR status a noncitizen who meets the eligibility criteria set forth in new INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] section 245G(b), including criminal and national security background checks and payment of applicable fees, submit [sic] an application pursuant to procedures set forth in section 245G(c) and has performed agricultural labor or services for at least 2,300 work hours (or 400 work days) in the five-year period immediately preceding the date on which such noncitizen [sic] file the application.

The 2,300 hours or 400 days requirements in five years are interesting in themselves. Five years have 1,826 days; 400 is 21.9 percent of the total. The number 2,300, when divided by 400, produces workdays of five hours and 45 minutes each, a concept new to me. Setting the working day at that length, and the total number of days to 21.9 percent of those available suggests a minimal standard, designed to make as many people eligible as possible.

This is the only provision in this bill that moves a population directly from totally illegal status to that of LPR . This will be welcomed by ag interests, but the chances are that many farmworkers, once they have legal status, will move on to other kinds of work.

TPS. Temporary Protected Status is granted to illegal aliens of a given nation when they happened to be in the U.S. when something terrible happened to the home nation, such as an earthquake in Haiti, or a revolution in South Sudan. The idea is that we should not deport anyone back to those nations under those conditions. In administrations prior to that of Donald Trump, TPS status was continued, usually at 18-month intervals, time and time again, long after the storm or rebellion was gone.

The ACA/21 bill proposes in Section 1104(a) that all in TPS status, or eligible for it, on January 1, 2017, be eligible for conversion to LPR status. Presumably, the handful of TPS aliens who filed new applications for that status during the Trump years would be eligible to become LPIs.

DACA. At first glance, the requirements for DACA recipients to move on to LPR seem to be numerous, but once you examine them they constitute a "you all come" situation. One must meet an education or work requirement, or be the spouse or child of someone who does, or secure a waiver. A DACA applicant would need a serious criminal record, or fail to apply, to not get a green card under the proposed rules.

I cannot tell from the outline whether one must be in DACA status at the time of the application to be eligible for the green card; we have noted that there has been a substantial reduction in the size of the DACA population because of non-renewals in recent years; in fact, there were 172,000 dropouts as of late 2019.

Whether the dropouts will face extra hurdles is not clear, but two other elements are perfectly clear: DACA recipients are now eligible to work for Congress, and to receive tax "credits and subsidies under the Affordable Care Act".

Symbolism and the Military. The proposed legislation preserves the fiction, first created by the Obama administration, of DACA recipients in the military, now giving such persons green card status. As we pointed out earlier, it is hard for an illegal alien to enlist, and if they do, and serve honorably, they have had, all along, a much better reward in the immigration law than DACA status.

We once filed a FOIA request about the number of DACA applicants who had claimed military service in their applications and were told that the responses to this part of the form were not even counted by DHS.

But the proposed law, in Section 245D(b)4(B), still offers a green card to DACA recipients who have served two years and have honorable discharges.

Implementation. I will be curious to see if this administration does what the Reagan administration did with IRCA, if there is another legalization. The old INS, then run by the now late Alan Nelson, created a nationwide network of legalization offices, so that aliens would not be visiting the enforcement-oriented set of INS offices. Will that happen again?

Because of IRCA, INS created four regional centers to centralize the decision-making; these centers remain today for all sorts of other decision-making and will surely play a role in the next legalization effort, should it, or some parts of it, become the law of the land.

Go here to see the original:
Comparing Biden's Proposed Amnesty to the Legalization of the 1980s - Immigration Blog