Mediaboss Marketing

President-elect Joe BidenJoe BidenOutside groups flood Georgia with advertising buys ahead of runoffs Biden will receive @POTUS Twitter account on Jan. 20 even if Trump doesn't concede, company says Trump to participate in virtual G-20 summit amid coronavirus surge MOREs victory is reviving the hunt for one of Washingtons biggest white whales: immigration reform.

Talk of a potential agreement under Biden comes as Congress has tried and failed in recent years to clinch a deal related to the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States.

GOP senators pointed to immigration as one area of potential compromise under a government likely to be divided next year.

I think that would be a good thing to do, Sen. John CornynJohn CornynTrump keeps tight grip on GOP amid divisions Romney: Consequences of Trump actions during lame-duck 'potentially more severe' than transition delay The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by the UAE Embassy in Washington, DC - Trump, Biden clash over transition holdup, pandemic plans MORE (R-Texas) said about the potential to do immigration next year.

The challenge is youve got to get the votes, but that to me is one of my biggest disappointments in my time in the Senate, our inability to get that done, Cornyn said, adding that he would try to be part of that effort if the topic comes back up.

Sen. Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamHackers love a bad transition The Hill's Campaign Report: Trump campaign files for Wis. recount l Secretaries of state fume at Trump allegations l Biden angered over transition delay Georgia elections chief: 'Emotional abuse'to mislead voters about fraud MORE (R-S.C.) during a recent call with reporters said there was room for deals between Republicans and Biden on several issues, and there may be some things we can do on immigration. You know, you got the Dreamers hanging out there.

I will be willing to work with the Biden administration, if he wins and Im not conceding that he will in ways to make the country stronger, Graham said, adding that Biden would have to decide if he wants to cut deals with Republicans.

Sen. Chuck GrassleyCharles (Chuck) Ernest GrassleyOvernight Health Care: Trump announces two moves aimed at lowering drug prices | Sturgis rally blamed for COVID-19 spread in Minnesota | Stanford faculty condemn Scott Atlas Cut tariffs and open US economy to fight COVID-19 pandemic Rick Scott tests positive for coronavirus MORE (R-Iowa), who will chair the Judiciary Committee if Republicans keep control of the Senate, didnt rule out action on immigration but warned it would depend on the parameters, which he said would need to be somewhere in between extremes on both sides.

Its kind of a case of the extreme points of view like people who think we can load up 12 million people and get them out of the country; if they want to do that, they cant be a part of it. And for the people who want people to be citizens yesterday, they cant be a part of it, Grassley said.

The shift to a Biden administration comes after President TrumpDonald John TrumpBen Carson says he's 'out of the woods' after being 'extremely sick' with COVID-19 Biden will receive @POTUS Twitter account on Jan. 20 even if Trump doesn't concede, company says Trump to participate in virtual G-20 summit amid coronavirus surge MORE took a hard line on both illegal and legal immigration during the past four years, waging a years-long fight over the border wall, trying to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, overhauling U.S. asylum policy and enacting a zero tolerance strategy that has left, according to court documents last month, at least 545 immigrant children yet to be reunited with their parents after the government separated them.

The Senate in 2018 was close to an agreement that would have provided $25 billion for border security in exchange for a path to citizenship for 1.8 million undocumented immigrants who came to the country as children, but the White House and the Department of Homeland Security helped tank it.

The House passed the DREAM Act in 2019, but the bill went nowhere in a GOP-controlled Senate.

If Democrats had been swept into the Senate majority, immigration reform was expected to be on their to-do list as the party considered ending the legislative filibuster.

Now, even if Democrats are able to force a 50-50 tie by flipping two Georgia seats in runoff elections in January, they would be well short of the 60 votes needed to pass a deal.

The uphill battle in Congress has immigration reform advocates urging Biden to make changes to the system through executive action, including rolling back Trump orders.

Biden is expected to quickly revive the DACA program, end the Trump administrations so-called Muslim ban and end construction on the U.S.-Mexico border wall. He is reportedly eyeing a freeze on deportations to give his administration time to issue new guidance for immigration agents. Biden also announced late last week that he would dramatically increase the refugee cap.

Ron Klain, Bidens incoming chief of staff, reiterated that addressing children brought into the country illegally as children would be one of the first actions taken by a Biden administration, saying it would be an action taken care of on Day One.

But immigration reform advocates are warning they will pressure Congress to take legislative action on immigration reform starting next year and wont just settle for executive actions.

Lorella Praeli, the president of Community Change, said during an event on Monday hosted by the National Immigration Forum that both Biden and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellBiden decides on pick for secretary of State OVERNIGHT ENERGY: House Democrats push Biden to pick Haaland as next Interior secretary | Trump administration proposal takes aim at bank pledges to avoid fossil fuel financing | Wasserman Schultz pitches climate plan in race to chair Appropriations Key McConnell ally: Biden should get access to transition resources MORE (R-Ky.) will feel some pressure.

A lot of people are deciding too early in my view ... to throw in the towel on Congress, to let Mitch McConnell off the hook, but I am unwilling, 100 percent unwilling to do that in this moment, she said, adding that there were multiple pathways to getting a path to citizenship.

Stuart Stevens, a longtime GOP strategist, said he thought it was in the best interest of the Republican Party to make a deal on immigration reform, saying it should be a win-win for both parties.

But pressed if he thought McConnell would be helpful, he added, Listen, Mitch McConnell and helpful are words Ive not tied together in a long time.

McConnell has generally been wary of bringing up items that divide his caucus. The Senates 2018 immigration votes, for example, were driven by leverage to reopen the government.

And the GOP caucus, even with Trump out of the White House, has immigration hawks that are likely to bristle at any talk of a deal with Biden. Sens. Tom CottonTom Bryant CottonMore conservatives break with Trump over election claims Warnock hit by Republicans over 'cannot serve God and the military' comment Republican senators urge Trump to label West Bank goods as 'Made in Israel' MORE (R-Ark.) and David PerdueDavid PerduePence campaigns in Georgia as Trump casts shadow on runoffs Loeffler faces ethics complaints for soliciting donations in US Capitol The Hill's 12:30 Report - Presented by Capital One - Pfizer, BioNTech apply for vaccine authorization MORE (R-Ga.) were behind a Trump push to reduce legal immigration, a plan that earned backlash even from fellow Republicans.

Fox Newss Tucker CarlsonTucker CarlsonMore conservatives break with Trump over election claims Ex-AG Holder urges GOP to speak against Trump efforts to 'subvert' election results The Hill's 12:30 Report - Presented by Capital One - Pfizer, BioNTech apply for vaccine authorization MORE immediately ripped Graham for his comments earlier this month, accusing him of being willing to sell out his voters with an amnesty deal.

Sen. Ted CruzRafael (Ted) Edward CruzMcSally, staff asked to break up maskless photo op inside Capitol Capitol's COVID-19 spike could be bad Thanksgiving preview Republican senators urge Trump to label West Bank goods as 'Made in Israel' MORE (R-Texas), asked about making a deal on immigration with Biden, argued that Democrats would try to enact amnesty, a buzzword used on the right that stirs up political passions among base voters.

I think the Democrats want to see a massive amnesty plan, which would be a serious mistake, Cruz said.

Asked if he thought it was a mistake for his colleagues to even open the door on immigration with Biden, Cruz replied, Yes.

Read the rest here:
Biden win revives immigration talk | TheHill - The Hill

Democrat and former Vice President Joe Biden likely will be the next president of the United States, but that does not guarantee freedom for Rosa Sabido, who has lived in sanctuary in a Mancos church for over three years.

Sabido was among the people living in sanctuary who signed and sent a petition to Biden, asking him to publicly commit to granting a stay of removal, or temporary postponement of deportation, to each person living in sanctuary on his first day in office.

The petition, organized by the Sanctuary Collective, also asked Biden to lift deportation orders against those in sanctuaries within his first 100 days in office, and to sign all private bills that grant paths to citizenship for people in sanctuary.

Already, Biden has promised to restore Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. It allows about 600,000 young immigrants who live in the U.S. illegally and were brought here as children to remain in the U.S. Although the program does not give legal status, it does give temporary protection from deportation and permission to work legally, similar to protections under DREAM Act proposals.

Opponents say the law rewards people for breaking the law, encourages illegal immigration and hurts U.S. workers.

Biden also has stated he will send a comprehensive immigration bill to Congress within his first 100 days in office.

But Sabido is restrained in her expectations about the scope of change to immigration Bidens administration will bring, especially with the urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic weighing on the incoming president.

Im cautiously optimistic, she told The Journal last week. Biden has promised to reverse the Trump administrations policies, but I dont know to what point, Sabido said.

Sabidos experienceHer doubt stems from 33 years of living in Montezuma County without obtaining legal citizenship, and not for lack of trying, she said. Even if Biden were successful in reversing executive orders from the Trump administration that forced her into sanctuary to avoid raids by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Sabido said she is skeptical of broader reform.

Her application for a one-year stay of removal was denied by ICE in June 2017. The former church secretary fought for decades after arriving from Mexico to gain permanent residency but has not been successful.

I have been so hopeful in the past administrations that things will change, but they didnt, Sabido said. Thats why Im here.

Reconstruction of the immigration system cant be done through an executive order from the president alone, and Republicans in the Senate might not support reformative legislation.

Division over immigrationDespite Bidens projected victory over President Donald Trump, anti-immigration sentiments in Montezuma County are not dissipating.

I dont feel safe for the next weeks until (Biden) takes office, Sabido said.

She also is concerned Trump will pass more executive orders on immigration before January, when his term ends.

There is relief that comes with a Trump defeat, Sabido said, recalling the hundreds of immigrant children who are separated from their parents after arriving at the Mexico-U.S. border.

But there is still strong division, she said.

What this country went through for four years was so painful and abusive, she said. I cant believe it will be over soon.

After Jan. 20, she plans to restart the long process of asking for support from Colorado congressional leaders with a private bill granting citizenship.

Rosa Belongs Here, a community organization helping Sabido in her effort to achieve permanent residency, delivered a petition signed by 2,750 people to U.S. Rep. Scott Tipton, R-Cortez, in February, asking him to introduce a bill in the House of Representatives that would provide a legal path for Sabido to stay in the U.S.

But nothing has come of the petition, and Tipton was defeated by Lauren Boebert in the Republican primary.

Boebert went on to win the general election, and given her criticism of Tipton for making it easier for immigrant farm workers to gain residency in Colorado through the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, she might not support Sabido in her attempt to gain citizenship.

The defeated Democratic candidate for the House, Diane Mitsch Bush, had promised to sponsor a bill for Sabido.

But Sabido continues to hold hope.

I trust in peoples humanity, she said.

Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., also has shown support for Sabido.

Mending misunderstandings Sabido said not all immigrants are criminals, as Trump has suggested.

We are innocent people who do nothing but work, she said. There are many immigrants like Sabido that did not get married or have children to stay in the country, but tried to gain citizenship by working and applying for it, and yet she still has not gained citizenship, she said.

We come to this country with this dream, Sabido said, and find so many things we dont have in our countries.

But that image of the U.S. has been lost under the Trump administration, she said.

Theres a language of healing, and I think thats the key word, she said.

Those interested in supporting Sabido can help by participating in an online auction and fundraiser for Sabidos legal citizenship efforts and to help pay bills she is still incurring on her house while in sanctuary.

[emailprotected]This article was republished on Nov. 16 to report that Joe Biden, the projected winner of the presidential election, likely will become U.S. president.

Follow this link:
Would a Biden administration bring immigration reform? - The Journal

The Pueblo Chieftain

Prevent urban sprawl with immigration reform

By Glen Colton

TheUnitedStateslosesafootballfieldofnaturallandevery30seconds. Not to erosion or rising sea levels. But to a different kind of deluge -- a flood of people moving to theUnitedStates.

Since 1996, the U.S.populationhas skyrocketed from 270 million people to 330 million, primarily due to migration from other countries. That figure could eclipse 440 million by 2065 if current trends continue. Nearly 90 percent of thegrowthwill come from immigration, according to Pew Research.

Asourpopulationexplodes, so does the demand for new buildings, roads, and cropland. Unless we humanely reduce future immigration levels, overdevelopment will irrevocably destroyouropen spaces.

Cities can only hold so many people before developers expand into surrounding areas. This buildout, known as "urban sprawl," has already destroyed vast swaths of countryside. The continentalUnitedStateslost 24 million acres ofnaturallandto development between 2001 and 2017.

At this rate, "a South Dakota-sized expanse of forests, wetlands, and wild places in the continentalUnitedStateswill disappear by 2050," according to the Center for American Progress.

Developers swallow up farmland too. Between 1992 and 2012, they converted 31 million acres of agriculturalland-- the equivalent of all the farmland in Iowa -- into subdivisions, office parks, roads, and other man-made structures. By 2050, there will be a mere 0.7 acres of farmland per U.S. resident. That's a 63 percent decrease from the level in 1980.

When developers cannibalize former farmland, it leaves farmers with two environmentally damaging options.

They can either raze more open spaces -- including existing forests and unplanted fields -- and turn it into viable new cropland. Or they can boost yields on existing plots of farmland by using more pesticides and fertilizers, which ultimately polluteourwaterways and the food we eat.

Rapidpopulationgrowthalso causes terrible traffic congestion. As people get pushed further away from city centers, they're forced to drive longer distances and sit in traffic for hours on end. In 1980 -- when the country had 100 million fewer people -- the average American spent 20 hours a year stuck in traffic jams. Now, the average American spends 54 hours a year -- more than a full weekend -- dealing with congestion.

This congestion isn't merely annoying -- it's poisoningourplanet. The longer people sit in traffic and idle their cars, the more emissions they generate. Sprawling urban areas are responsible for 80 percent of thegrowthin vehicular carbon emissions since 1980. Those emissions -- which account for 28 percent of total fossil fuel emissions in theUnitedStates-- exacerbate climate change, which threatens to devastate much of the planet via floods, wildfires, storms, and droughts in the coming decades.

Fortunately, there's still time to prevent this environmental catastrophe. More than 11,000 scientists recently warned that "the worldpopulationmust be stabilized . . . [to lessen] greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss."

Americans are already embracing sustainability and choosing to have fewer children. Ifpopulationgrowthwere driven solely by birthrates, the U.S.populationwould barely budge in the coming decades.

Unfortunately, Congress hasn't held up its end of the bargain. Since lawmakers expanded annual immigration levels in 1965, immigrants and their descendants have accounted for 55 percent ofpopulationgrowth. America's foreign-bornpopulationhas more than quadrupled over the last five decades. Today, more than 45 million immigrants live here. And in the coming decades, immigration will cause nearly all of the projectedgrowthin the U.S.population.

The vast majority of immigrants are good people. They'reourfriends and neighbors.

But it's possible -- in fact, it's essential -- for environmentalists to welcome the immigrants already here while pushing for humane limits on future migration. It's the only way to protectouropen spaces from overdevelopment.

Curbing overall immigration levels needn't be a partisan issue. Sixty-three percent of Americans, including 53 percent of Democrats, support cutting annual legal migration to less than 500,000, according to a Harvard/Harris poll. Currently, the government admits about 1.1 million new immigrants each year.

The American public is already trying to stabilize thepopulationand protect the environment. It's time forourleaders to follow suit.

Glen Colton is an environmentalist and long term sustainability activist who lives in fast growing Fort Collins, Colorado.

See the original post:
Columnist: Prevent urban sprawl with immigration reform - Pueblo Chieftain

The presidential election likely means a new perspective on immigration policy. But a potentially divided Congress means that it may be difficult to enact immigration reform legislation that addresses the major problems in Americas immigration system.

One area where most observers normally think an obvious fix exists would be the restoration of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that the current administration had slated for termination. The problem, however, with such a quick fix is that there is an existing lawsuit in a Texas federal court challenging the legality of DACA for not having been issued with notice and comment rulemaking and also for violating the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The same court previously invalidated the Obama administrations Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program for the same reasons the DACA program is being challenged, and the Supreme Courts composition has changed since 2016 such that many more immigration cases have been adjudicated in favor of the enforcement position.

In addition, even at its most ambitious, the DACA program only helps a very small percentage of the estimated 10 to 12 million undocumented individuals living in the United States.

There is, however, a statutory program that grants unreviewable discretion to the president that could help almost all of the undocumented individuals in the United States on day one of a new presidency. Title 8 Section 1254a of the U.S. Code specifically authorizes a U.S. president to grant any foreign national Temporary Protected Status (TPS) if there is an earthquake, flood, drought, epidemic, or other environmental disaster in the foreign nationals home country. Pursuant to the statute, a grant of TPS provides: a) relief from removal; b) the ability to work in the United States; and c) the ability to become eligible for lawful permanent residency if the foreign national has a qualifying relative (spouse, parent or child) or U.S. employer who will petition the individual for a green card.

A proposal available under the INA that could address the flux of DACA recipients would be that, on day one of a new administration, the president would grant TPS to every foreign national without status who was present in the United States prior to March 13, 2020, which was the date the current administrationdeclared a national emergency regarding the coronavirus outbreak. The current administration has already laid the groundwork for such a global granting of TPS by having had the director of The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)issue a memorandum pursuant to Title 42 Section 265 of the U.S. Code that bans foreigners from entering the United States by identifying the existence of a communicable disease throughout the world and stating that COVID-19 is a global pandemic that has spread rapidly.

This TPS announcement would allow all people already present in the United States to immediately gain 18 months of legal status, and would place many people already here on a path to gain lawful permanent residency, which they cannot now gain by virtue of being in undocumented status. It would also not be subject to being overturned by the courts given how clearly the statute permits the granting of TPS for nationals of a country where there is an epidemic, and given that the current administration itself has recognized a global epidemic in its orders banning people from entering Americas land borders due to this epidemic.

The manner most conducive to removing the uncertainty for DACA recipients and others in precarious immigration statuses would not involve running the risk of: a) waiting for Congress to pass legislation given that might not ever pass; b) reinstating a deferred action or parole program that is likely to be stricken by the courts for not going through the formal regulatory process; nor c) spending over a year in the formal regulatory process trying to craft a regulatory program that may still be stricken by the courts.

The most effective solution if the goal is to provide certainty is often the easiest one, and the TPS solution simply uses the road that the current administration already paved when it excluded all foreign nationals from the United States on the basis of the existence of a global pandemic. It is axiomatic that if it is too dangerous to accept foreign nationals from countries where the COVID-19 pandemic is rampant, it is equally dangerous to remove foreign nationals in the United States to countries where the COVID pandemic is rampant.

Consequently, a new approach should be considered that involves the use of TPS and it is the more certain path to achieving the relief that was intended by the DACA program, but for a larger group of individuals.

Leon Fresco is a partner in Holland & Knights Washington, D.C., office where he focuses his practice on providing global immigration representation. Before joining Holland & Knight, he was the deputy assistant attorney general for the Office of Immigration Litigation at the U.S. Department of Justices civil division.

Read the original post:
Temporary Protected Status solution for undocumented immigrants - The Hill

By Rosanna Berardi

Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our weekly newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the weekly Coronavirus briefing.

Law360 (November 16, 2020, 6:12 PM EST) --

While immigration issues have been a focal point of countless U.S. presidential elections, this superficial rhetoric only serves to complicate the problem. The only solution is for Congress to act.

Much like the current state of U.S. immigration policy, its history is complicated. Even though the U.S. is known as a melting pot founded by immigrants, the country hasn't always experienced mass immigration. U.S. immigration has historically alternated between permissive and restrictive policies since the first immigration laws were enacted in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

Until recently, those changes were always driven by Congress.

So what's changed? With so many pressing immigration issues including the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy, sanctuary cities, illegal immigration, temporary workers and restrictions in response to the global pandemic Congress has all but disappeared when it comes to meaningful changes in immigration policy.

In 1965, Congress made what are arguably the last significant changes to the U.S. immigration system to date. In the 55 years following these amendments, Congress has been relatively silent, even though several major components of the current immigration system no longer work as intended.

Presidents continue to act, or rather attempt to act, on immigration, but these are merely stopgap measures typically politically motivated attempts to pander to their base rather than effective legislative changes. As a result, U.S. immigration policy has become a political quagmire in desperate need of an update.

U.S. immigration law is antiquated and faulty. It fails to reflect our economic, social or as of recently public health concerns. The application process is difficult to navigate, the number of available employment and family-based immigrant visas isn't enough to meet demand, and the costs associated with filing applications are now reaching unaffordable levels.

In some instances, the backlog for U.S. immigration is so great that the government is currently processing petitions that were filed in the late 1990s, meaning applicants are facing delays of over 20 years.

The pandemic added a new layer of complexity to an already decaying immigration model. Pandemic-related immigration restrictions abounded in a desperate, and misguided, attempt to bolster the U.S. economy prior to a hotly contested election. Immigration restrictions were painted as an America-first path toward healing the U.S. economy, but employment shortages continued in both technology and health care.

Both are industries desperate to hire additional workers and there aren't enough skilled American workers to fill those roles. Without a congressional solution, employers will move abroad to fill empty roles, as legal immigration seekers are barred entry from communities in the U.S., in which they would buy homes, settle down and invest in local economies

One study found that H-1B visas will create an estimated 1.3 million new jobs and add around $158 billion to gross domestic product in the United States by 2045.[1] The U.S. government is essentially throwing away money and jobs that could be created by simply increasing the amount of H-1B visas allocated each year.

To make matters worse, the 85,000 lucky individuals chosen in the H-1B lottery each year are slapped with thousands of dollars in government filing and processing fees, and are subject to inconsistent adjudications by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.[2]

The problem is further aggravated when individual agencies attempt to take matters into their own hands, bypassing normal legislative processes. For instance, in early October, the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security published new rules in an attempt to restrict and curb the issuance of H-1B visas and employment-based green cards.

One rule significantly increased the required wage that must be paid to H-1B workers by changing an already inferior mathematical formula for computing the minimum or prevailing wage paid to the professional. Specifically, an entry-level professional H-1B status must now earn a salary paid to the 45th percentile of workers in the geographic area of that occupation, rather than the formerly assigned 17th percentile of workers.

Take the example of an entry-level H-1B professional software developer in Chicago making $70,000 annually. Where the former minimum wage rate for H-1B purposes was set at $63,190, the minimum is now $85,010.

This sudden change in wage requirements rolled out under the guise of COVID-19-related economic recovery is putting H-1B employers in an impossible position. Even more notably, this particular wage rule bypassed the regulatory review process and became effective immediately upon publication, without any input from stakeholders and businesses. Not surprisingly, lawsuits were immediately filed, and many stakeholders are hopeful for a nationwide injunction.

These are only a few of the ways Congress' lack of action has negative impact on the U.S. economy.

Politicians have a difficult time preserving U.S. jobs while maintaining the American legacy of a welcoming nation. No politician wants to campaign for more foreign workers unions, lobbyists and special interest groups would have a field day with this type of campaigning.

The fact remains, however, that a large portion of the U.S. economy, especially in the tech and medical fields, is largely dependent on foreign labor and that there are too few temporary work visas available to address the need.[3] So how do you address and fix such a complicated problem while taking all of these points into consideration? The answer is deceptively simple.

Reassess Quotas and Increase Annual Ceiling

Congress should reassess the current quota system and increase the annual ceiling on Eastern and Western hemisphere immigration. Even if the number of available family and employment-based visas was increased temporarily, it would alleviate pressure on the government agencies processing petitions and drastically reduce backlogs that are in place for those who have been approved and are just waiting for a visa to become available. It would be a win-win for everyone.

Further, the U.S. immigration law needs to contain a guest worker program, outside of the current H-2 visa program. As a nation, we need to create a system that allows temporary workers entry to provide critical agricultural services. The current procedure for this type of entry is complex, inefficient and expensive. A less formal program is needed to allow foreign nationals to enter the U.S. for agricultural and skilled labor positions while cutting down costs and inefficiencies.

Changes will be coming down the pipeline under the new Biden administration. Biden has already vowed to start work on his first day in office to reverse Trump's agenda by reuniting children and parents who were separated at the border, restoring asylum laws at the border to protect those fleeing persecution, and reversing anti-Muslim travel bans.[4]

As part of this, Biden will also immediately release a 100-day ban on deportations.[5] However, no matter what Biden has in store, Congress will be key to making those changes permanent.

To create lasting, impactful change, we need Congress to focus on fixing the system as a whole instead of relying on questionable stopgap measures implemented from the White House. Immigration issues will continue to dominate the headlines the DACA saga alone has been ongoing since 2012 because, ultimately, the power to determine the future of U.S. immigration lies with Congress. It needs to create a solution now. America can't afford to wait another 55 years.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its clients or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

[1] https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/h1b-visa-program-fact-sheet.

[2] https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/h-1b-specialty-occupations-and-fashion-models/h-1b-fiscal-year-fy-2021-cap-season#:~:text=Congress%20set%20the%20current%20annual,subject%20to%20this%20annual%20cap.&text=H%2D1B%20workers%20in%20Guam,31%2C%202029; https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/07/31/h-1b-fees-to-jump-visa-dependent-firms-targeted-homeland-security-says/.

[3] http://research.newamericaneconomy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/pnae_h1b.pdf; https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/healthcare/nursing-shortage-hits-crisis-levels-but-immigrant-nurses-may-provide-relief-if-they.

[4] https://joebiden.com/immigration/.

[5]https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/8/joe-biden-immigration-plan-grants-citizenship-11-m/.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.

Read the original post:
Congress Should Take Responsibility For Immigration Reform - Law360