Mediaboss Marketing

Advertisement

In late 2018, the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) of Japan pushed through an immigration reform law that aimed to attract 345,000 foreign workers over the next five years. Driven by demographic and business concerns about Japans shrinking labor force, the legislation created two types of visas: one for less skilled foreign workers to stay for not more than five years, and one for semi-skilled workers who can stay for 10 years with the possibility to become permanent residents thereafter. Almost immediately, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his party were on the defensive, battling criticisms of the law from the left and the right.

The more liberal-leaning opposition parties protested the hastily drawn up legislation, pointing to the lack of preparations to protect foreign workers rights and provide for their social welfare. Japan already had a trainee program, but the program was plagued with worker abuses such as trainees working overtime, being underpaid, or having their passports withheld, and has recently been linked to concerns about political corruption. Opponents to immigration reform were concerned about increasing the number of immigrants before even adequately dealing with the problems of the existing trainee program. Preparing Japanese to live with foreigners and providing Japanese language education for accompanying children are particular concerns.

At the time of the laws passage, it was also criticized from a more traditionalist angle for creating a path for guest workers to become permanent residents, and for allowing some guest workers to bring their families. Though the conservative ruling party is responsible for passing the law, that does not mean that Japans mainstream attitude is currently receptive to embracing foreign nationals as truly Japanese. Deputy Prime Minister Aso Taros recent single-race nation gaffe (which he later apologized for) demonstrates how deeply many Japanese identify Japan as a nation for the Japanese race.

The immigration reform law took effect on April 1, 2019. The findings of last Novembers Cabinet Office survey were released earlier this week, offering a glimpse into how the Japanese public views the issue of granting permanent residency to foreigners.

The 1,572 survey respondents were told that at the end of 1998 Japan had 90,000 permanent residents, at the end of 2008 Japan had 490,000 permanent residents, and at the end of 2018 Japan had 770,000 permanent residents. They were then asked whether they thought Japan had many permanent residents or not. Of the respondents, 38.3 percent thought that Japan has many permanent residents, 29.2 percent thought that Japan has an appropriate number of permanent residents, and 18.6 percent thought that Japan has few permanent residents.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

Though a plain reading of these numbers would indicate that there is little appetite to increase the number of permanent residents, such an interpretation may be misleading given how little information was given to respondents. Providing more information about Japans labor force shortages or demographic crisis for example, the Cabinet Office estimates that Japan has a shortage of about 1.2 million workers in many labor-intensive sectors could change these results. The survey findings tell us that Japanese respondents may have an initial inclination to think that there are many permanent residents, but it does not rule out the possibility that they may be persuaded about the desirability of more permanent residents if given greater context.

Respondents were also asked what kinds of requirements are needed to grant a foreigner permanent residency, and were allowed to select multiple answers. 73.7 percent responded having no criminal record, 71.6 percent responded paying taxes and social security premiums, 61.3 percent responded having never broken immigration laws, and 53.9 percent responded having enough income or property to support themselves.

The survey also asked respondents whether permanent residency should be revocable. An overwhelming majority 74.8 percent said it should be revocable, and only 14.6 percent opposed such a measure. Of the respondents who wanted permanent resident status to be revocable, 81.0 percent said that permanent resident status should be revoked if the individual was sentenced to prison, and 73.2 percent said status should be revoked if the individual failed to pay taxes and social security premiums.

These survey results are interesting for two reasons. First, there seem to be at least two separate concerns driving those who are less favorable toward granting foreigners permanent resident states: one is couched in terms of law and order concerns, and the other in terms of the states fiscal sustainability. It is impossible to disentangle which concern is more salient given the way the questions were structured to allow individuals to give multiple responses.

Second, even though respondents were given the option to also select criteria for permanent residency that may be interpreted as more nativist, these options were not the most popular. Specifically, only 31.3 percent of respondents thought that living in Japan for at least 10 years should be a minimum condition for permanent residency on the first question. On the question about conditions for revoking permanent resident status, only 38.3 percent thought that it should be revoked if a foreigner married a Japanese person and thus sped up their approval process but divorced the Japanese person soon after gaining status, and only 33.1 percent thought that status should be revoked for foreigners who spent most of the year abroad.

Whether such responses were not chosen as often because respondents genuinely do not prefer those options or because they thought it was impolitic to select those options is difficult to say. The government-run survey was a fairly straightforward questionnaire, with no attempt at uncovering less savory motivations for opposing granting foreigners resident status, though incidents of anti-foreign discrimination and hate speech belie any benign image of Japan as an immigrant-friendly nation.

The rest is here:
January 22, 2020 Is Japan Ready to Welcome Immigrants? - The Diplomat

According to an advisory opinion issued in December by Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, localities in the commonwealth cannot declare themselves exempt from laws passed by the state legislature. In support of his position, Herring cites both statutes and established common law doctrines [that] specifically limit the authority of local governments. He further states, It also bears emphasis that neither local governments nor local constitutional officers have authority to declare state statutes unconstitutional or decline to follow them on that basis.

Translated into plain English, Herring is telling jurisdictions that have identified themselves as Second Amendment sanctuaries meaning they will refuse to enforce any new state laws that impose mandatory gun registration to stay in their own wheelhouse and execute the laws passed by the legislature. Should counties and localities believe that a gun law passed by the Virginia Assembly is unconstitutional, they should follow proper procedure and either speak to their legislative representatives or file a lawsuit requesting that a court declare the measure unconstitutional.

Thats wise advice. Our governmental system is constructed as a pyramid. We have multiple levels of government that exercise limited authority. Local governments are not entitled to pick and choose which state laws they wish to enforce. Similarly, states are prohibited from engaging in selective enforcement of federal laws. When any level of government attempts to usurp responsibilities exercised by the tier above or below it, the whole pyramid collapses. Herrings memorandum advises municipal and county governments to stick to the format that has made our republic successful for the past 244 years.

So one wonders why Herring wishes to apply his logic only to Second Amendment issues. Virginia is full of so-called illegal immigration sanctuaries. In those jurisdictions, local governments refuse to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Whats more, they actively shield immigration violators from federal authorities. Clearly, those cities and counties are attempting to nullify federal immigration law and declare themselves exempt from it. And they do so with the full support of the Virginia state government.

In fact, Herring himself has strongly supported Virginia officials who have thumbed their noses at both the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and ICEs authority to enforce it. He has unabashedly declared that state law enforcement officials who hold immigration violators on the basis of detainer requests issued by ICE risk violating the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable seizure. And he has consistently interfered with efforts by Virginia law enforcement agencies to cooperate more closely with federal immigration authorities in order to remove dangerous, criminal aliens from Virginias communities.

But, according to Herrings logic, neither Second Amendment sanctuaries, nor immigration sanctuaries are lawful. The U.S. Constitution grants the federal government exclusive authority to regulate immigration. As a matter of law, state and local government officials have no say in how, where or when the federal government chooses to enforce the INA. In fact, the Supreme Court explicitly stated this, in 2012, in its holding in United States v. Arizona.

So, why did Second Amendment sanctuaries provoke a sternly-worded memorandum telling local officials to play nice when the attorney generals office has not uttered a single word about immigration sanctuaries? Clearly this is an instance of profound hypocrisy a case of, Do as I say, not as I do. Because, while he professes to believe that Virginians should hew closely to the principles of constitutional federalism when addressing public concerns over gun control legislation, Herring is perfectly comfortable obliterating any distinctions between federal and state powers or executive, legislative and judicial functions, for that matter when it comes to immigration.

If we, indeed, live in a country that is ruled by distinct levels of government that are intended to exercise limited powers in defined spheres, then state and local governments should, as Herring suggests, either petition Congress to change laws they dont like or file lawsuits seeking to overturn them. But that approach, which is dictated by our system of Republican democracy, should be the standard procedure regardless of the issue that is subject to debate guns, immigration or anything else.

Meanwhile, Virginia residents who support the rule of law are still waiting for Herring to advise illegal immigration sanctuaries that their policies are both illegal and unacceptable.

Matt OBrien is director of research at the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a nonprofit group advocating for legal immigration. He previously served as assistant chief counsel with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and as a division chief with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. He lives in Virginia.

Read the original:
Virginia AG's immigration hypocrisy | TheHill - The Hill

24 January 2020

Envoy Global, Inc.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Immigration is always evolving, but 2019 brought with it somechanges that could impact the next decade of talent mobility. TheU.S. saw increased scrutiny of petitions, new policies and callsfor immigration reform from both political parties. For employers,it's clear that immigration will remain a hot topic going into2020, and staying ahead means staying informed.

As we've previously discussed, year-end data released by U.S Citizenship & ImmigrationServices (USCIS) proves that scrutiny of visa petitions continues.In FY 2019, USCIS received a total of 420,617 H-1B visa petitions,and of the petitions submitted and completed, 40.2% of themreceived a Request For Evidence (RFE). Once a petition receives anRFE and is re-submitted, it's approved 65.4% of the time,according to USCIS data. While the approval percentage is a declinefrom previous fiscal years, it actually increased when compared toFY 2018. Other visa types, including the L-1 visa, were alsosubject to increased RFE rates and declining approval rates.

Originally proposed back in March 2018, USCIS finalized a ruleon June 5, 2019, requiring all visa applicants to submit their social media information to theDepartment of State. Applications must now include anysocial media account names from Facebook, Twitter, Instagram,LinkedIn and YouTube used over the previous five years (individualscan voluntarily input additional social media accounts on platformsnot listed.) Additionally, applicants will also need to providefive years of previously used email addresses, international traveldetails, deportation status and telephone numbers.

Wondering about electronic registration for the FY2021 Cap season? Register For Envoy's webinar on January 15 tolearn more.

The H-4 EAD program, which allows the spouses of high-skilledimmigrant (H-1B) visa holders to work in the U.S., is currentlyfacing opposition by the Trump administration, as well as a lawsuit from a private advocacy groupagainst the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). While thelawsuit was recently allowed to proceed in a district court, theTrump administration's proposal remains under federal review.DHS has indicated that the program could be rescinded as early asSpring 2020, but at this time, there is no impact to H-4 dependentsholding or seeking to apply for EAD cards. USCIS will continue toaccept and adjudicate initial EAD applications and extensions underthe current rule.

Earlier this year, all eyes were on the Fairness For HighSkilled Immigrants Act, which aimed to eliminate the annualper-country cap on green cardscurrently at 7%toalleviate extended green card wait times. The act passed the House with bipartisan support inJuly, but failed to pass the Senate. Sponsors are seeking anothervote on the bill, but meanwhile, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) hasintroduced a competing proposal known as the Resolving ExtendedLimbo for Immigrant Employees and Families (RELIEF) Act, whichaddresses concerns that the High-Skilled Immigrants Act wouldcreate new backlogs for countries other than China and India, amongother provisions.

Electronic registration. The new registration process, firstproposed in December 2018, will require employers wanting to fileH-1B petitions to register electronically with USCIS for eachsponsored foreign national employee in lieu of filing a completepetition upfront. On December 6, 2019, USCIS announced that it will implement the system for the FY 2021Cap season.

The 2020 Presidential Election. The highly-anticipated electionwill likely shape future reforms to both employment-based andfamily-based immigration and the green card process. Stay up todate by following reputable news sources such as the AssociatedPress, Reuters and the American Immigration Lawyers Association(AILA).

Continued scrutiny. GIA expects the trend of increasing RFErates for H-1B petitions and other employment-based visas tocontinue in 2020. Minimize your risk by developing a strategic and thorough immigration programthat accounts for changing regulations and other unexpectedcircumstances.

Envoy is pleased to provide you this information, which wasprepared in collaboration with Jordan Mendez, who is a SeniorAssociate at Global Immigration Associates, P.C. (www.giafirm.com),Envoy's affiliated law firm.

The content of this article is intended to provide a generalguide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be soughtabout your specific circumstances.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Immigration from United States

McLane Middleton, Professional Association

For roughly the past year there have been a greater number of jobs available than workers seeking jobs.

Dentons

In a move under the Hire American/Buy American Executive Order touted as aiding US employers, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services in November actually placed an extra burden on US employers...

Go here to see the original:
The State Of US Immigration: 2019 Highlights And What To Expect In 2020 - Mondaq News Alerts

Over the next few weeks, eight of the remaining Democratic presidential nominees met in Des Moines on Monday (January 20) to discuss their health and social justice issues at the Brown & Black Forum, hosted by VICE News and Kashmiri Originals.

Surveys show wage inequality, general economic injustice and the current governments stance on immigration as the basis for the Black-LatinX vote.

In response, Demoratics hopes doubled on popular issues such as raising the minimum wage and creating a path to citizenship.

RELATED: Brown & Black Presidential Forum Gives Gen Z and Millennials a Voice

The former Vice President took part in the forum Joe BidenSen. Bernie Sanders from Vermont, Sen. Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts, Sen. Michael Bennet from Colorado, former Vice President Joe Biden, Ex-mayor Pete Buttigieg, former representative John Delaney by Maryland and Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and entrepreneurs Andrew Yang,

The forum was moderated by correspondents from VICE News Antonia Hylton. Alzo Slade, Paola Ramos. Dexter Thomas. David Noriegon, Krishna Andavolu, and Roberto Ferdman,

This is what the candidates said at the Brown and Black Forum on immigration and the economy.

RELATED: How the Black Economic Alliance Blames Presidential Candidates

Michael Bennet

Colorado Senator Michael Bennet was the first to step onto the Des Moines stage.

Bennet quickly realized that his campaign had a name recognition problem after moderator Alzo Slade pointed out that New York Magazine described her as the mild white man youve never heard of.

I am not as well known as other candidates, but I think the ideas that I am pushing forward in this campaign will make the biggest difference for children living in poverty in this country.

Bennets economic plan provides for an increase in the tax credit for children, paid family vacation, a tax credit for earned income, and an increase in the minimum wage for companies that can afford to do so.

When Bennet asked the question whether companies that cannot afford a living wage should still be in business, he said: A wage is better than NO wages. This opinion is in stark contrast to candidates like Sanders and Warren who advocate one Minimum wage of $ 15.

Joe Biden

When former Vice President Joe Biden took to the stage in Des Moines, he was criticized for his attachment to the record number of deportations by the Obama administration.

Biden, however, stopped criticizing the previous government directly.

As we did when we reformed the system with the DACA, I wouldnt leave them behind bars, Biden said of the Obama administrations Deferred Action for Child Arrivals program that one way the country would have offered illegal citizenship for undocumented immigrants as children.

Instead, Biden supports the implementation of a system in which those who cross the border are not imprisoned, but are followed with an anklet.

Unlike some of his opponents, including Senator Elizabeth Warren, Bidens plan is no longer addressing more advanced measures, such as decriminalizing border crossing and introducing a temporary moratorium on deportation. In addition to supporting a minimum wage of $ 15, Biden is keen to support unions and take action against companies that try to stop collective bargaining.

Pete Buttigieg

The moderators urged former South Bend, Indiana mayor Pete Buttigieg to fight for resonance among minority voters.

Buttigieg used his screen time in front of a diverse audience to reaffirm his plan to address inequality and what he calls the Trump administrations discriminatory policy towards Latinos.

Buttigiegs plan includes creating a path to citizenship for immigrants who live, work and pay taxes, end family separation, and update immigration laws to meet todays economic and humanitarian needs.

Buttigieg not only supports raising the federal minimum wage to $ 15, but also supports the Paycheck Fairness Act. The law, passed by the House of Representatives last year, would prohibit employers from using an employees history of wages to determine wages, and would give employers the right to discuss wages without retaliation and to justify wage differentials.

Bernie Sanders

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders boldly replied when the moderators described his agenda as radical.

Raise the minimum wage to $ 15 an hour: is that radical? Cancellation of all student loan debts. Radical? Immigration Reform: Radical? , Sanders asked the audience, who said with a loud NO! Replied.

On his website, Sanders immigration proposal includes the use of executive measures to protect unauthorized immigrants who have lived in the United States for more than five years from deportation.

Sanders also plans to implement tax breaks for large corporations to remove tax loopholes and reliefs that benefit only the rich and to raise tax rates for the top 0.2% of wealthy Americans.

Im a very data-driven guy, but Im 100% confident that putting $ 40 billion in Black and Browns hands every month will be a huge win, said entrepreneur Andrew Yang when asked was how universal he was. Basic income can close the wealth gap.

Yang plans to give every adult American $ 1,000 a month in universal basic income to compensate for job losses through automation. The first-time presidential candidate proposes to pay most of the monthly distributions by introducing a new 10 percent sales tax on goods and services.

Amy Klobuchar

I dont pretend to know what it feels like to walk around the store or face poverty like 30 percent of black children do, but I know its not right, said Senator Amy Klobuchar of the harmful rhetoric of the current government targeting minorities.

On her website, the Minnesota senator outlines how ICE is to be reformed and the applicable guidelines regarding border detentions to be reviewed.

The Brown & Black Forum kept the candidates on time, so that not every candidate had the opportunity to solve every problem. Read on to find out where some of the Presidents other hopefuls are on immigration and economic policy.

labyrinth

Earlier, Senator Elizabeth Warren had proposed plans to raise the federal minimum wage to $ 15 and streamline the process for refugees seeking asylum.

Warrens plan of economic patriotism would result in the government prioritizing the interests of the middle class over those of business. This is aimed directly at companies like Amazon, which receive significant tax incentives from the government.

When it comes to immigration, Warren calls for the program to be expanded for DREAMers and their families, as well as those with temporary protection status. If elected, Warren plans to accept more refugees and decriminalize crossing the border without papers.

Though bold, Warren would have great difficulty in Congress, especially if Republicans kept control of the Senate.

Tom Steyer

Tom Steyer, the billionaire from California, has outlined an immigration proposal aimed at decriminalizing illegal border crossings and is working with Congress to find a way to illegally naturalize millions of people in the United States.

Like Sanders, Steyer promises to use executive measures to restore the Obama administrations protection to people who were brought in illegally as children. He would do the same to lift President Donald Trumps Muslim ban and end the separation of immigrant families on the US-Mexico border.

Steyers economic agenda highlights people in front of profits and aims to address what Steyer calls the undue influence of corporate power on the US economy. Like many of his White House rivals, his plan also includes a minimum wage of $ 15.

John Delaney

The former three-day congresswoman from Maryland supports a comprehensive immigration reform. As a congressman, he supported the DREAM law in 2017, the so-called dreaming, which would have opened the way to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who were brought into the country illegally as children.

In the past, he described the Trump administrations decision to end DACA as cruel, heartless, and mean.

By clicking Submit I consent to receiving BET newsletters and other marketing emails. BET newsletters are subject to our data protection guidelines and conditionsuseful. Users can unsubscribe at any time. BET newsletters are sent by BET Networks, 1540 Broadway, New York, NY 10036. http://Www.bet.com

Link:
Brown And Black Forum: Immigration Reform and Economy - The Media Hq

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren once praised then-candidate and future President Donald Trump as someone who gets out and he talks about important things, but said his position on deporting undocumented immigrants scratches his name off the list.

Senator Warren made the remarks during a September, 2015 appearance on ABCs The View.

During the show, then-co-host Paula Faris asked about Trumps appeal, as he was then rising to the top of an expansive Republican primary field.

What is it that he is doing thats creating this? Faris asked.

You know, I dont know, there are a lot of places where he gets out and he talks about important things, Warren said, then added Like, Donald Trump and I both agree that there ought to be more taxation of the billionaires, the people who are making their money on Wall Street.

Co-host Joy Behar chimed in, Thats a pretty liberal position, to which Warren replied, Dont call it liberal. It is a pretty right position. And its where most of America is.

What is he doing thats really connecting with people? Faris said.

Well, I got to tell you, its the other half with Donald Trump, Warren said. Because hes the one who said he wants to rip 11 million people who live in this country right now, rip them out of their families, take them away, and deport them.

For me, that just scratches his name off the list, Warren continued, adding You cant be president of the United States if thats your view about how were going to solve immigration reform. Thats wrong.

When Faris asked again why Trump was resonating with so many people, Warren cracked Youve got to remember who hes being measured against on the Republican side, no offense, then went on to say that I [Warren] think part of whats happening is people want to know what the candidates out there stand for and what theyre willing to fight for.

Bernie Sanders is out there generating an enormous amount of interest. Hes out there talking about it, and I think this is what we need for all the presidential candidates, Warren said.

Warren never got around to naming the other important things Trump talks about, but as president, Trump never did manage to raise taxes on billionaires. Or at least, he hasnt yet.

Watch the clip above via ABC.

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

Read more:
WATCH: Elizabeth Warren Praised Trump in 2015 But Said Immigration Scratches His Name Off the List - Mediaite