Mediaboss Marketing

Austin, TX, February 12, 2021 The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced on Friday that the agency will begin processing the estimated 25,000 persons who were ordered by the Trump administration to stay in Mexico pursuant to the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) though current COVID-19 regulations at the border would remain in place.

In a press release, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas reiterated that President Biden is trying to move to a less onerous immigration policy.

As President Biden has made clear, the U.S. government is committed to rebuilding a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system, Mayorkas said. This latest action is another step in our commitment to reform immigration policies that do not align with our nations values.

However, Mayorkas stipulated that the coronavirus pandemic, restrictions at the border remain in place and will be enforced.

He also directed those who were not enrolled in the MPP program or who do not have active immigration court cases to await further instructions.

DHS will create an online registration portal for those who desire to take advantage of the administrations program to admit them into the U.S.

Though Biden has been sharply critical of former President Trumps immigration policies, DHS indicated that stringent immigration procedures are still in effect.

The announcement should not be interpreted as an opening for people to migrate irregularly to the United States. Eligible individuals will only be allowed to enter through designated ports of entry at designated times, the press release said.

The Biden administration recently faced criticism from Republican lawmakers in a letter led by Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX-21) that condemned the president for halting the MPP program and cautioned against suspending the COVID-19 regulations.

Instituted under Trump, the MPP program requires illegal immigrants to wait in Mexico while their cases work their way through the immigration system.

According to information provided by DHS when the program was first announced, family units comprise an increasing proportion of illegal immigrants, which makes the immigration system more complicated and vulnerable to malicious actors.

Then led by Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, the department asserted that misguided court decisions and outdated laws enable human smugglers and drug traffickers to take advantage of the system by traveling with unaccompanied minors and family units.

Human smugglers and traffickers exploit migrants and seek to turn human misery into profit, DHS said at the time. Transnational criminal organizations and gangs are also deliberately exploiting the situation to bring drugs, violence, and illicit goods into American communities.

Since then, the demographics of illegal border crossings have shifted from being driven largely by family units from Central American countries to single adults from Mexico, though the number of single adults from Central America has also been on the rise.

Though the Biden administration said there are 25,000 people remaining with active cases who were sent back to Mexico under the MPP, it did not disclose how many cases the Trump administration had processed since instituting the program.

The administration stated it will test individuals for the coronavirus before bringing them back to the U.S. under this new directive, though Sheriff A.J. Louderback of Jackson County stated this week that there are illegal immigrants at large who were not tested prior to their release.

The United States and our partners will employ all necessary safety precautions in accordance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance, including mandatory face coverings and social distancing. Individuals processed through this program will be tested for COVID-19 before entering the United States, DHS said.

DHS will only process individuals consistent with its capacity to safely do so while fully executing its important national security and trade and travel facilitation missions.

See the original post here:
Homeland Security to Readmit Illegal Immigrants Previously Excluded Under 'Migrant Protection Protocols' - The Texan

It is difficult to imagine two people as different as Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Trump, born to wealth, taught to repress feelings; Biden, a man of the working class, deeply shaped by misfortune and faith but with the great gift of connecting over shared emotions. Weve gone from the least empathetic leader in my lifetime to perhaps the most empathetic. In our system of government, the president is both the head of government (the prime minister) and the head of state (the monarch). As head of state, the president represents the nation and has the mission of unifying the country. He represents the nations shared values and symbolizes America, along with the flag, the White House and the Capital Dome. Biden routinely speaks of unity and common values; Trump reflexively appealed to his political base alone and saw the nation through red and blue-tinted lenses.

In a presidency that is less than one month old, President Biden has reassured the Dreamers that they would not be abandoned, began the difficult process of welcoming refugees, started to reunite immigrant parents separated from their children, and most importantly, refocused America on the issue of impoverished children. While no one should be blamed for a lack of economic success, there is an American ideology that assigns fault for being poor. However, even those who blame adults for being poor spare children from such blame. If poverty is inexplicably defined as failure, even those holding such a ridiculous view see children as innocent victims. When Americas now tattered safety net was first put into place, our welfare system was called Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). AFDC was part of the Social Security Act of 1935. In 1997, AFDC was replaced by Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. Again, welfare was focused on children.

Despite this nations wealth and the economic boom that was supposedly underway in the pre-COVID Trump economy, the number of hungry children in America has remained unacceptably high in good times and bad. Pre-pandemic, the U.S. Department of Agriculture counted 11 million food insecure children. The Childrens Defense Fund counted 12.5 million hungry American children at that time. My colleagues at Columbias Center on Poverty and Social Policy published a report this past November on the impact of COVID on American poverty and concluded that:

In contrast to measures of poverty based on a familys annual resources, we project monthly poverty rates based on a familys monthly resources before and throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. The monthly poverty rate increased from 15% to 16.7% from February to September 2020, even after taking the CARES Acts income transfers into account. Increases in monthly poverty rates have been particularly acute for Black and Hispanic individuals, as well as for children. In April and May, the CARES Act was successful in offsetting potential increases in monthly poverty but was not successful at preventing a rise in deep poverty, defined as having monthly income lower than half the monthly poverty threshold.

The persistence of childhood poverty and the impact of our weakened economy on children has resulted in the reemergence of childhood poverty on Americas political agenda. A recent article by Jim Tankersley and Emily Cochrane in the New York Times reported that:

The early weeks of the Biden administration have brought a surge of support, in the White House and across party lines in Congress, for what could be the most ambitious effort in a generation to reduce child poverty. The plans vary in duration, design and the amount they would add to the federal debt, but they share a new and central premise in the policy debate over how to help the poor: that sending monthly payments through tax credits to parents, even if they do not earn income from work, is the best way to help feed, clothe and house children from low-income families.

Senator Mitt Romney has proposed a plan to provide $4,200 per year for every child up to the age of 6, as well as $3,000 per year for every child age 6 to 17. About 20% of American children live in poverty in contrast to 13% of the children in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries. The rate of child poverty is highest (about 40%) in single-parent households. The current economic crisis, and the spread of poverty into families that have never experienced it before has created a wave of sympathy and political support for addressing the issue of childhood hunger and poverty.

All over America, we see an upsurge in direct assistance to those in need from people who have enough resources to help out. From community refrigerators in Brooklyn, to drive-in food pantries in Texas, the fact of hunger in the midst of Americas plenty is calling on all of us to pay more attention to people in need. Just as we saw in the Great Depression, and again during Lyndon B. Johnsons Great Society, American poverty is at long last stimulating a response in Congress.

The cruelty of the Trump years has been replaced, at least for now, by a renewal in America of the compassion expressed by our empathetic and expressive new president. To Trump, feelings and frailty are a form of weakness. That is why he hid the seriousness of his own fight with COVID-19 and made a show of ripping off his mask and strutting on the Truman Balcony of the White House upon his return from the hospital. Strength and winning were all that mattered. Illness, frailty, business failure and yes, poverty were indicators of personal failure and weakness to be avoided and swept under the rug at all costs.

Our new president lost his wife and a child in a car accident when he was 30 years old and watched an adult son die of brain cancer in 2015. He has dedicated his life to public service. His ability to connect one-on-one is legendary. The contrast to his predecessor is clear and his electoral victory was in large measure a response to his empathy and regard for others when compared to Donald Trumps cruelty and extreme self-regard. During this time of COVID-induced isolation, illness and loss, we needed a leader able to express and address our pain. Pretending that COVID-19 would soon disappear made little sense to many, in the face of growing numbers of infections, hospitalizations and death. While many voted for Trumps view of the world, over seven million more voted for Bidens.

President Biden seems determined to use the COVID-created economic crisis to take a long overdue and non-incremental step that will reduce poverty in America. Similarly, the immigration issue has also festered for decades while over 11 million people have taken their place in American society as our neighbors and friends in what remains, a nation of immigrants. Trump began his campaign for the presidency by riding down the Trump Tower escalator and warning that hordes of criminals were crossing the nations borders. His administration promoted cruel immigration policies that separated families at the border and conducted ICE enforcement raids that deported immigrants and caused fear and anxiety in millions of immigrant households. Trade restrictions, new limits on visas for workers and students, xenophobic language (the China Virus) and anti-foreign policies were the product of the Trump Administrations America First philosophy. Bidens initial efforts at immigration reform have already been labeled amnesty and open borders by conservatives. But despite their best efforts, the Trump administration could not find and deport the millions of people who settled here illegally, and the courts also prevented him from acting against people who were brought here illegally when they were children. Illegal immigration and hungry children are facts of American life that require action instead of endless symbolic debate.

Trump was willing to exploit anti-immigrant impulses for political gain and rarely expressed any concern for the human impact of his policies. A significant part of Bidens case for immigration reform will be built on stories about the role played by immigrants in our communities and in our economy, and similar to the issue of child poverty, he will appeal to the sense of compassion and empathy he is able to credibly convey to the nation. Compassion will clearly be a consistent message of his still new presidency. It is a relief to see empathy, compassion and human connection back in the White House. It is a hallmark of the American presidency. In his second inaugural speech, at the end of a bitter and bloody civil war, and about a month before his murder, Abraham Lincoln best expressed the unifying mission of the American President as head of state:

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nations wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphanto do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.

Lincoln could empathize with insurrectionists and for their families. Surely, we can now find it in our hearts to help children, dreamers and refugees. Our new president gives me hope we can do just that.

See the original post here:
Compassion, Empathy and American Anti-poverty and Immigration Policy - State of the Planet

Overview

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA) strengthened U.S. immigration laws, adding penalties for undocumented immigrants who commit crimes while in the United States or who stay in the U.S. for statutorily defined periods of time.

The Act was designed to improve border control by imposing criminal penalties for racketeering, alien smuggling and the use or creation of fraudulent immigration-related documents and increasing interior enforcement by agencies charged with monitoring visa applications and visa abusers. The Act also allows for the deportation of undocumented immigrants who commit a misdemeanor or a felony.

The Actmandates that immigrants who are unlawfully present in the U.S. for 180 days but under 365 days must remain outside the United States for three years unless pardoned. If they remain in the United States for 365 days or more, they must stay outside the United States for ten years unless they obtain a waiver. However, if they return to the U.S. without the pardon, they must wait 10 years until they may apply for a waiver.

For more on IIRAIRA, see this Cornell Law Review article, this Journal on Migration and Human Security article, and this Center for Migration Studies article.

See the rest here:
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility ...

Illegal immigration to Australia is defined by the Migration Act 1958, which distinguishes between "lawful non-citizens" (those in Australia holding a valid visa) and "unlawful non-citizens" (those without a valid visa).[1]

Immigration to Australia is administered by the Department of Home Affairs, formerly the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP), and before that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC).

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), the majority of people in Australia illegally are visa overstayers, who enter the country legally but remain there after the expiry or revocation of their visa.[2] DIAC estimated that in the period from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010, approximately 15,800 people overstayed their visas out of 4.5 million temporary entrants during that period (about 0.35 per cent). As of 30 June 2010, DIAC estimated that the number of visa overstayers in Australia was around 53,900, or 0.2 per cent of the Australian population.[3]

Australia operates a number of immigration detention facilities within the country, as well as several offshore processing centres. All Australian immigration detention facilities are managed by the British services company Serco on behalf of the Australian government. Australia currently has three functioning offshore centres, and ten detention centres on the mainland. A List of Australian immigration detention facilities includes Nauru, Christmas Island, and Manus Island.

Prior to 1992, the Migration Act 1958 permitted discretionary detainment of unlawful non-citizens. In 1992, the Keating Government introduced a policy of mandatory detention, in response to a wave of boat arrivals from Indochina.[4]

As a signatory to the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Australia operates a humanitarian intake of migrants of around 13,770 persons per year (by comparison, Australia's Migration Program was 168,600 places in 200910). Those who have not gained prior approval to enter Australia for the purpose of seeking asylum were referred to as irregular arrivals.[5]

There are two classifications for irregular arrivals: Illegal Maritime Arrivals (IMAs; prior to 2013 the term "Irregular Maritime Arrivals" was used) and Non-IMAs (those arriving in Australian territory without a visa by non-maritime means, such as by air). In the 201112 period, the number of IMAs was greater than the number of Non-IMAs for the first time.[6]

In 2013, the Minister for Immigration, Scott Morrison, directed his department to use the term "illegal maritime arrivals" instead of the previous term "irregular maritime arrivals". The application of the term "illegal" to asylum seekers is controversial. While it is not a criminal offence to seek asylum in Australia, or to enter Australian territory without immigration documents for the purpose of seeking asylum, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Fact Check unit determined that the term was valid when referring to an arrival's entry status. In addition, the United Nations Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, to which Australia is a signatory, defines "illegal entry" as "crossing borders without complying with the necessary requirements for legal entry into the receiving State".[7]

Here is the original post:
Illegal immigration to Australia - Wikipedia

By Pawel Styma | March 2020 | Click here for Full PDF Version

Americas immigration and naturalization system is abused in many ways with one of the most egregious examples being the exploitation of birthright citizenship, or the automatic American citizenship granted to nearly all individuals who are born in the U.S. The roots of the controversy are found in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Debate over the proper interpretation of the 14th amendment continues, but no one disputes that citizenship carries with it specific benefits, such as the right to vote and eligibility for certain government benefits.

Therefore, securing birthright citizenship holds great value that can be viewed as an incentive by parents-to-be to enter the U.S. illegally in order to give birth. It can also enhance an illegal aliens chances of gaining permanent status if their child is an American.

While there have been attempts by lawmakers in both parties to scale back or even end birthright citizenship, those efforts have not been realized. According to the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), it is estimated that every year approximately 300,000 children gain birthright citizenship because they are born to illegal alien mothers in the United States. That accounts for roughly 7.5 percent of all live births every year. While this number may not seem significant, the cost to American taxpayers $2.4 billion is quite significant. Because of our current overly-broad and abuse-incentivizing interpretation of birthright citizenship, all of these children receive automatic U.S. citizenship.

Since birthright citizenship continues to be an incentive for illegal immigration, it remains an issue at the heart of the immigration debate both inside and outside of Congress. For example, former Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced legislation in 1993 that included a provision to end birthright citizenship, describing it as a reward for being an illegal immigrant, and emphasizing that no sane country would do that. The bill never made it to the Senate floor for a vote, and Reid would later reverse his position on the issue.

Since then, bills to end or amend birthright citizenship have been introduced at the state level, and almost every year since 1993, including in the current Congress, in the federal legislature as well.

The issue once again became front and center on October 29, 2018, when President Trump stated that he wanted to put restrictions on birthright citizenship most likely through an executive order. Although the President did not specify the groups that would no longer receive automatic birthright citizenship under his plan, it appears that he was referring to the children of illegal and temporarily-present aliens. Trump floated the idea again in late August 2019, but no further action has been taken by the Administration.

The current controversies surrounding birthright citizenship stem from differing interpretations of the 14th Amendment, which was adopted in 1868 in the wake of the Civil War. Its main objective was to ensure that recently-emancipated slaves were allowed to vote and granted all of the legal protections due to citizens under the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment states that: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Most of the debates focus on the meaning of one key phrase: and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

Those in favor of maintaining birthright citizenship argue that the Amendments use of the term jurisdiction is purely geographic, meaning that foreign nationals are subject to U.S. jurisdiction while on its soil.

Critics of the current interpretation note that in 19th century parlance, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not subject to any foreign power. And the latter formulation was, in fact, used in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, upon which the 14th Amendment was based. In other words, the amendment understood jurisdiction as political authority. Thus, illegally present aliens are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

Senator Jacob M. Howard (R-MI), who introduced the citizenship clause in 1866, emphasized that his understanding of birthright citizenship will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens [emphasis added], who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States ().

The U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on citizenship in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898. Wong Kim Ark was born in California in 1873 to parents who were Chinese subjects but also legal permanent residents. The court ruled that he was indeed a U.S. citizen based on the 14th Amendment. However, the Supreme Court never ruled on the controversial question of whether the Citizenship Clause requires a broad view of jurisdiction that extends birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens or temporarily present aliens.

Moreover, during the second half of the 19th century mass illegal immigration was not yet the major problem it would become during the past several decades. This is important to take into account when considering the original intent of the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Supreme Courts Wong Kim Ark ruling.

Automatic citizenship for the children of illegal aliens is deeply problematic for several important reasons. First, it rewards people who have entered or remained in the country in violation of our laws. Second, once a citizen child reaches 21 years of age, they can sponsor their illegal alien parents for legalized immigrant status.

As David North of CIS points out, many illegal aliens believe that having a U.S.-born child can help them in some way. Moreover, as one illegal alien woman interviewed in 2008 revealed to CBS News, when asked if many women cross the border to give birth: Yes. I know people who have done that. Things are much better here in the U.S. because they help children so much more. She also admitted that her goal was to anchor her entire family in the U.S. According to FAIRs 2019 calculations, the United States already has a large illegal alien population of 14.3 million. Why not reduce the number of pull factors encouraging illegal migration and presence?

There are also costs associated with giving birth. In the above-mentioned CBS report, the CEO of the McAllen Texas Medical Center where about 40 percent of births were to illegal alien mothers stated that mothers about to give birth () walk up to the hospital still wet from swimming across the river in actual labor. Once they deliver, their child is a U.S. citizen. The costs of the labor, as well as any medical treatment along the border, are picked up by the American taxpayer. A study by CIS found births to illegal alien mothers constitute 11 percent of all publicly funded births in the U.S. and cost taxpayers $2.4 billion annually.

As FAIR has pointed out, illegal aliens can receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children. According to our report on the fiscal costs of illegal immigration, American taxpayers pay $6.7 billion annually in Medicaid spending on the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens. All of this is part of the total cost of illegal migration, which we estimate at $132 billion a year, and which may rise to $200 billion by 2025.

In addition, birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens has the potential to create a growing constituency of U.S. citizens, many of whom presumably have an emotional and vested interest in supporting policies that undermine our immigration laws. According to the Pew Research Center, in 2016 there were 5 million U.S.-born children under 18 living with at least one illegal alien parent, and almost another million individuals over 18 living with at least one unlawfully present parent.

Furthermore, it is unfair to legal immigrants who must endure a long and painstaking process to become naturalized U.S. citizens, including being a permanent resident for at least five years, submitting to a ten-step naturalization process and numerous requirements, and paying a steep fee ($640-$725).

Fewer than forty countries recognize birthright citizenship as law and most of those are located in the Western Hemisphere.

Of developed democracies, only the United States and Canada grant automatic birthright citizenship (with the exception of the children of diplomats). And, like in the United States, members of both political wings inCanada have called to reform and limit birthright citizenship to no avail.

France, New Zealand, Australia, and, most recently, Ireland, haverestrictedthe practice to varying degrees in recent years.

The abuse of birthright citizenship by illegal aliens has been a problem for decades. It is high time that we reform and clarify it by ensuring that those who are in the country illegally are not rewarded by giving their U.S.-born children automatic citizenship. In practice, the only way to truly settle the question of which interpretation of the 14th Amendment is correct is for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the matter. Any legislative or executive action likely would be challenged in court, and hopefully appealed up to the higher court, thereby granting it an opportunity to rule on the issue directly.

For more information, please see FAIRs issue brief,Birth Tourism.

See the rest here:
Birthright Citizenship and Illegal Immigration