Week of April 23, 2023

April 19, 2023 Biden Administration Wants to Redefine “Lawful” and Make Americans Pay for It

When Congress approved the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010 it explicitly barred illegal aliens from receiving taxpayer-subsidized coverage under the program. But like countless other laws intended to discourage and penalize illegal immigration, the Biden administration is now attempting to make an end-run around this restriction through executive action.

The administration’s latest proposal attempts to redefine “lawful presence” for Affordable Care Act and Medicaid programs, allowing the nearly 580,000 individuals with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status to take advantage of taxpayer-funded medical insurance despite lacking any legal status. DACA recipients remain illegal aliens, even though enrollment in the program temporarily exempts them from removal. This fast-tracked change, if it succeeds, would make a mockery of federal immigration laws while potentially adding billions to the nearly $200 billion that illegal immigration costs Americans every year.

This change directly violates laws that protect the American taxpayer from being responsible for paying for illegal aliens. Section 401 of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), signed into law by President Bill Clinton, specifically excludes illegal aliens from receiving non-emergency federal Medicaid. Meanwhile, section 1312(f)(3) of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) specifically prevents people who are not lawfully present from enrolling in ACA exchanges. DACA is an illegal executive program that was created by President Barack Obama two years after the enactment of the ACA. Attempting to expand Medicaid and access to ACA exchanges to illegal alien participants in the DACA program is a clear violation of both the spirit and letter of the law.

In the unlikely event this change survives a court challenge, it would only add to the burden that illegal immigration imposes on American taxpayers. According to a recent estimate by the Kaiser Family Foundation, 46 percent of DACA-eligible individuals are not employed, and a similar percentage live in relative poverty which would likely allow them access to Medicaid if this change is approved.

The federal government spends an average of nearly $6,000 per adult under 65 receiving Medicaid coverage. Even if only the poorest uninsured DACA recipients enrolled at rates similar to American citizens under this proposal, it could cost the government up to $1.24 billion annually. If every DACA recipient enrolled in the programs made available, it could cost as much as $3 billion a year – something the Biden administration appears to have no issue with. This shows that even “minor” changes like this can have dramatic fiscal impacts.

There is no issue of unclear intent here; the Biden administration is attempting to gaslight the American public by saying that laws specifically written to keep illegal aliens from burdening our social programs instead somehow include them. Two plus two does not equal five, and people participating in DACA, a program that requires them to be unlawfully present in order to enroll, cannot be declared lawfully present simply for the purpose of gaining public benefits.

April 19, 2023 Canada: Strike Affecting Immigration Processing

At a Glance

Members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), Canada’s largest public sector union representing over 150,000 public employees, started a strike on April 19, 2023.

As a result, most services provided by the government of Canada are now fully or partially disrupted, including most immigration services provided by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC), and Passport Canada.

The strike could also result in longer wait times at Canadian ports of entry, including airports and land crossings.

Employers and foreign nationals should submit necessary immigration applications early to prepare for potential delays.

The situation

Members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), Canada’s largest public sector union representing over 150,000 public employees including employees at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and Service Canada (ESDC) started a strike on April 19, 2023. The strike is one of the largest strikes in Canadian history.

April 19, 2023 Canada: Strike Affecting Immigration Processing

At a Glance

Members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), Canada’s largest public sector union representing over 150,000 public employees, started a strike on April 19, 2023.

As a result, most services provided by the government of Canada are now fully or partially disrupted, including most immigration services provided by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC), and Passport Canada.

The strike could also result in longer wait times at Canadian ports of entry, including airports and land crossings.

Employers and foreign nationals should submit necessary immigration applications early to prepare for potential delays.

The situation

Members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), Canada’s largest public sector union representing over 150,000 public employees including employees at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and Service Canada (ESDC) started a strike on April 19, 2023. The strike is one of the largest strikes in Canadian history.

Executive Summary

Employers are increasingly turning to foreign labor to fill job openings – of which there are almost two for every unemployed American worker – but cannot rely on consistent, efficient access to these workers due to bureaucratic challenges associated with the immigration system.

To hire foreign workers, employers must first complete a permanent labor certification (PERM) which, due to its current one-year processing time, makes supplementing native-born labor with immigrants an unrealistic solution to the U.S. labor shortage.

Reforming the PERM process would provide a long-term solution to improve access to high-skilled immigrants but would likely be a lengthy process; in the meantime, updating the Department of Labor’s Schedule A, a list of occupations facing native-born worker shortages, to reflect current labor needs would allow many employers to bypass the PERM process and expedite the hiring of foreign workers.

Introduction

As the United States is currently facing a labor shortage in which there are 1.7 job openings for every unemployed American worker, many employers are turning to foreign labor to fill positions. Yet employers cannot rely on consistent, efficient access to high-skilled immigrant labor due to bureaucratic challenges associated with the immigration system.

Before filling an open position with a foreign worker, an employer must prove to the Department of Labor (DOL) that it has attempted to hire a native-born worker but could not due to an insufficient supply. This is done through the permanent labor certification (PERM) process, which currently takes between eight months to a year to complete, making immigrant labor an unrealistic solution to the U.S. labor shortage.

Reforming the PERM process would provide a long-term solution to more efficient access to permanent employment-based visas, but such a change would likely take significant time. An alternative and shorter-term solution is to update DOL’s Schedule A, a list of occupations that the agency has predetermined face an insufficient supply of qualified U.S. workers. Despite significant changes to the U.S. labor market, Schedule A has not been updated in over three decades. Updating the list to reflect current labor needs would allow many employers to bypass the PERM process and expedite the hiring of foreign workers in industries with the greatest labor shortages.

Employers Turn to Foreign Labor

There are currently 1.7 job openings for each unemployed U.S. worker. According to the latest Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey data, the industries with the most job openings, and therefore most likely to benefit from the introduction of foreign labor, are the “professional and business service” and “education and health service” industries with 1.8 million and 1.9 million openings, respectively.

Employers are increasingly turning to foreign labor to help fill job openings. According to Envoy’s 2023 Immigration Trends Report, 87 percent of U.S. employers are currently recruiting and hiring foreign national employees. Despite the demand for foreign labor, however, visa caps force domestic employers to compete for the limited number of available visas at a time when demand for foreign employee sponsorship is at an all-time high. Approved petitions face the further challenge of extensive processing times, which remain elevated compared to pre-pandemic conditions.

The PERM Process

Before filling open positions with foreign workers, an employer must prove to DOL that it has attempted to hire domestically but could not due to an insufficient supply of U.S. workers. This is done through the PERM process, which requires employers to submit a significant amount of paperwork to DOL: Employers must define the duties of the position, post multiple hiring notices to attempt to hire U.S. workers first, file forms detailing these efforts, and submit a prevailing wage request, which promises to pay the foreign worker the same wage as an American in the same role.

The average processing time for a PERM certification in 2022 was approximately eight months to a year. Although 2022 saw higher-than-usual processing times, the PERM process remains time-consuming under normal conditions: In 2020 the average processing time was four to ten months. Currently, a PERM certification is required for H-1B, E-B2, and E-B3 work visas. So, any employer hiring for specialty occupations, professions requiring advanced degrees, and skilled workers is looking at a year-long wait for immigrant workers, including those in the “professional and business service” and “education and health service” industries, which are facing the greatest number of job openings. As a result, supplementing native-born labor with foreign workers is an unrealistic solution to the U.S. labor shortage under the current permanent employment-based immigration system.

Possible Reforms

Streamlining the PERM process would shorten processing times, a long-term solution to the challenge that employers face in accessing permanent employment-based visas. This kind of reform has not been introduced since President Obama announced an executive action to modernize the PERM program in 2014. (While the Obama DOL submitted a draft PERM modernization regulation to the Office of Management and Budget for initial review, the administration never implemented a final regulation.) Reforming the PERM process would likely take significant time and is therefore not a promising solution for improving employers’ near-term access to foreign labor.

A more efficient and short-term solution to accessing foreign labor would be to update DOL’s Schedule A. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 established the list and gave DOL’s secretary authority to revise it at “any time upon his own initiative or upon a written petition of any person requesting the inclusion or omission of any occupation….” In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Schedule A requirements were revised to include an annual renewal of Schedule A designation. Approximately a decade later, DOL proposed another change that required employers to conduct a search for native-born workers to fill job openings before turning to foreign labor. Since the creation of Schedule A, the list of occupations has fluctuated according to labor force needs. DOL, however, has not updated Schedule A in over three decades, so today only physical therapists, nurses, and immigrants with exceptional ability in the arts and sciences are listed as in-demand workers, which is an incomplete representation of current labor force needs.

As DOL has predetermined that the occupations covered by Schedule A lack sufficient U.S. workers to fill open positions, employers hiring for listed occupations are able to bypass most of the PERM process and are only required to obtain the prevailing wage determination and submit the appropriate documentation to U.S. Customs and Immigration Services. As a result, employers hiring workers covered by Schedule A benefit from visa processing time that is reduced by approximately six months. If Schedule A were updated to include more occupations within the professional, business, education, and health sectors, employers in industries facing the most job openings would be better able to hire foreign workers, mitigating the labor shortage.

Conclusion

Employers are increasingly turning to immigrant labor to fill job openings but face about a year of bureaucracy in the process. Reforming PERM would shorten processing times for permanent employment-based visas but would likely take significant time and is therefore not a promising solution for improving employers’ near-term access to foreign labor. Instead, a more efficient and short-term solution to accessing foreign labor would be to update DOL’s Schedule A to reflect current labor needs, allowing employers in industries facing the greatest labor shortages to more easily hire foreign workers.

In ICE custody, that is, to spare states and localities hundreds of millions in costs

An April 20 report from RealClear Investigations (RCI) is headlined “Where Did All the Biden Illegal Immigrants Go? Hard-Up Sanctuary Cities Like New York Are Only Part of the Answer”. The report never answers the question of where the two million-plus Southwest border migrants released by the Biden administration have resettled, but it does reveal that those migrants are costing cities hundreds of millions in fiscal costs. When it comes to illegal migrants, it’s cheaper for ICE to keep them in custody — which is what the law mandates, anyway.

The Fiscal Costs. RCI broke down the official numbers released by three municipalities that are now seeking state and/or federal funding to deal with influxes of migrants released by DHS at the Southwest border into their jurisdictions: New York City, Denver, and Chicago.

According to the outlet, Denver is set to spend $17 to $20 million between last December and June to care for its 5,000 to 6,000 migrants, at a cost of somewhere between $800 to $1,000 per week for each migrant.

RCI reports that the state of Illinois rejected a request from Chicago for funding to offset the $120 million that city expects to spend on its “asylum seeker emergency response”, which the outlet calculates works out to about $33,000 per migrant in total.

NYC’s figure is more of a moving target, as RCI explains:

Using [Mayor Eric Adams’ (D)] own number of some 40,000 illegal immigrants that New York City has foot the bills for, it means taxpayers are spending roughly $150,000 per person to host new arrivals. In March, City Hall scaled back its count of the number of its immigrants to 12,700, which meant the taxpayers’ were spending nearly $5 million a day to take care of them, according to a New York Post analysis.

A total expenditure of $5 million per day for 12,700 migrants equals $393.70 per migrant per day, or just over $143,700 per year.

Congress’s Detention Mandate. As I have explained many times, section 235(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) requires DHS to detain every “applicant for admission” CBP deems inadmissible at the borders and the ports.

Pursuant to that provision, migrants apprehended crossing the border illegally are deemed “applicants for admission”, as are aliens who are found to be inadmissible at the ports of entry. Those aliens are not simply supposed to be detained while they are processed for removal — Congress also requires they be detained until they are either admitted to the United States, granted some sort of “relief” from removal (usually asylum), or removed from this country.

The Biden administration has released more than two million illegal Southwest migrants into the United States (the true total is higher, but can’t be determined due to a lack of transparency by the Biden administration, a complaint echoed by RCI).

Of those two million-plus Southwest border migrants, 277,383 are unaccompanied alien children who are nationals of “non-contiguous countries” (any country other than Canada or Mexico).

Under a poorly thought-out 2008 law — which was intended to curb alien trafficking but in many cases is actually abetting it — DHS must transfer such unaccompanied alien children to the Department of Health and Human Services for placement with “sponsors” in the United States.

Thus, those children are not covered by the detention mandate in section 235(b) of the INA, but that still leaves at least 1,740,262 illegal migrants who were encountered by CBP at the Southwest border and released by DHS into the United States in contravention of that law.

The state of Florida sued the Biden administration over its “non-detention policies” at the Southwest border, in a case captioned Florida v. U.S.

As U.S. district court Judge T. Kent Wetherell II recently explained in his opinion in that case, those Biden border releases are what’s driving the massive migrant surge that is drawing down municipal coffers in Denver, Chicago, NYC, and thousands of cities and towns across the United States:

Collectively, [the Biden administration’s migrant release policies] were akin to posting a flashing “Come In, We’re Open” sign on the southern border. The unprecedented “surge” of aliens that started arriving at the Southwest Border almost immediately after President Biden took office and that has continued unabated over the past two years was a predictable consequence of these actions.

You can legitimately blame “sanctuary” policies in those cities for the fact that they are destinations for released migrants (and a few in the RCI report do), but the “proximate cause” of their presence in the United States — that is, the “actual cause that is also legally sufficient to support liability” for them being here to begin with — is that the administration is flouting federal law and releasing them.

In other words, the federal government — not the states of Colorado, Illinois, or New York, let alone Denver, Chicago, or NYC — should be on the hook to provide for those migrants.

DHS Resources and the Costs of Detention. So why doesn’t DHS detain those Southwest border migrants, as the INA requires? The department blames Congress, asserting that the legislative branch has failed to give it adequate resources to hold those migrants.

Judge Wetherell conceded that was true but nonetheless found that a lack of resources did not let the administration off the hook for not detaining those migrants, explaining:

It is true that Congress is ultimately responsible for allocating the funds that are required to detain more aliens. However, DHS led Congress to believe that it did not need more detention capacity because it represented in its fiscal year 2022 and 2023 budget requests that “a reduction in detention capacity level will not impede ICE’s ability to apprehend, detain, and remove noncitizens that present a threat to national security, border security, and public safety.”

The fact that DHS continued to ask for less detention capacity and more money for “alternatives to detention” is another indication that the Non-Detention Policy challenged by Florida exists because it confirms Defendants’ prioritization of “alternatives to detention” over actual detention.

Thus, like a child who kills his parents and then seeks pity for being an orphan, it is hard to take Defendants’ claim that they had to release more aliens into the country because of limited detention capacity seriously.

That passage is crucial to understanding why detaining illegal border migrants in accordance with law is much cheaper than releasing them.

As the judge alludes to, the Biden administration has largely ditched real detention in favor of “alternatives to detention” or “ATD”, asserting that ATD is just as good as — and much more cost effective than — detaining those aliens.

DHS asserts on its “Alternatives to Detention” web page that: “The daily cost per ATD participant is less than $8 per day — a stark contrast from the cost of detention, which is around $150 per day”. (Emphasis added.)

That web page needs some updating, because in its most recent budget justification for FY 2024 (in which the administration again tries to cut detention funding), ICE asserts that the daily detention cost per bed per adult alien is $157.20, a $13.04 increase from FY 2022.

Thus, the cost of detaining any given border migrant in ICE custody is much cheaper on a daily basis than releasing them into NYC, where, again, the city is paying $393.70 per day to care for each.

ICE detention is also cheaper than releasing migrants into Chicago. According to DOJ statistics, the median completion time for a detained case in immigration court is currently 43 days, meaning that the median cost of detaining a migrant throughout the immigration-court process is $6,759.60 — about one-fifth what Chicago is paying to care for any individual migrant.

The same is true of Denver. Again, RCI expects that it will spend at least $800 per week for six months to care for each of its migrants, and assuming that there are 26 weeks in any six-month period, that equals $20,800 per migrant.

In other words, ICE detention would cost the federal government — the party to blame for those aliens being here to begin with — just about one-third of what Denver expects to pay. Simply put, the daily care costs in ICE detention may be slightly higher, but migrants stick around for fewer days in detention.

Moreover, when aliens are detained in ICE custody, DHS pays not only for their food, housing, and clothing, but also for their medical care. That latter cost can be a wild card in a non-detained setting, and the extra costs for treatment will be borne almost exclusively by local governments.

Of course, not all municipal costs are fiscal. Yale University reported in September that crowding in emergency departments (EDs) at hospitals across the nation is reaching “crisis levels”, and as NIH admitted in 2019, “undocumented residents” are “disproportionately dependent on” EDs “for care”. I seriously doubt Denver, Chicago, or NYC have included expenses to expand their EDs to accommodate their burgeoning migrant populations into their “asylum seeker” costs.

I’d be angry at the Biden administration if I were a local official. It might cost DHS less to release illegal migrants (it likely doesn’t), but those releases violate the law, encourage more migrants to enter, and shift the subsequent costs to care for those migrants from the federal government — which is to blame for them being here — to the states and cities. And states and cities are struggling mightily to keep up.

April 21, 2023

- US export controls compliance while avoiding immigration-related discrimination: DOJ issues guidance

On Tuesday April 18, 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division’s Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER) issued additional guidance regarding compliance with U.S. anti-discrimination laws at the same time as complying with U.S. export control laws. The DOJ issued an Employer Fact Sheet entitled, “How to Avoid Immigration-Related Discrimination when Complying with U.S. Export Control Laws”.

The Immigrant and Employee Rights Section, Civil Rights Division (IER) of the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued the Employer Fact Sheet and guidance at the same time as announcing a new enforcement action against General Motors regarding certain issues including those related to lawful permanent resident aliens (green card holders) and overdocumentation requests during the hiring process.

Under U.S. export control laws, the release of data to an individual who is not a U.S. Person, even within U.S. borders, is deemed to be an export to the recipient's country of permanent residency or citizenship. A U.S. Person is defined under the U.S. export control laws as a U.S. citizen, U.S. national, U.S. lawful permanent resident alien (green card holder), U.S. asylee and U.S. refugee. Consequently, U.S. companies, universities, and other organizations should exercise caution in their management and release of export controlled information and technology both inside and outside the territorial United States and implement appropriate policies and procedures. Such caution includes a proper export control assessment and screening process during the hiring and onboarding process, if required, that is consistent with U.S. anti-discrimination laws. Importantly, this export compliance assessment must be conducted separate and apart from the verification of identity and employment eligibility. Given the nature and complexity of this topic, a company should be assess its procedures and risks on a case-by-case basis.

The IER (formerly the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices) is responsible for enforcing the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which protects work authorized individuals from employment discrimination on the basis of citizenship status or national origin discrimination, including discrimination in hiring and the employment eligibility verification (Form I-9) process. IER from time to time issues determinations and rulings that have provided guidance on the request and collection of such information. IER has also negotiated settlement agreements with organizations that have violated the INA while attempting to comply with export laws, which provide insight into potential organizational liability in this area.

The recently released Employer Fact Sheet in April 2023 includes a number of tips and best practices which states:

“Reviewing documents for export compliance assessment or the Form I-9

Only do export compliance assessment for those workers whose positions require working with export-controlled items.

If you ask workers whose positions require working with export controlled items to provide documentation of their citizenship or immigration status, let them know you are doing so to determine if export authorization is required.

Separate export compliance assessment from the Form I-9 process. Workers may decide to show the same documentation for each process, but separating the processes avoids a worker believing they are being asked to prove their citizenship or immigration status for the Form I-9 process.

Don’t require workers to present Form I-9 documents that prove their U.S. citizenship, specific immigration status, or show that they fall within the categories of workers who are U.S. persons for export control purposes. Instead, allow workers to choose valid documentation to present from the Lists of Acceptable Documents.

Don’t mark the Form I-9 with notes or other information related to export control requirements.

Storing documents

If you copy documents as part of export compliance assessment, store them separately from Forms I-9 and any I-9 attachment. If an employer attaches or stores export compliance assessment documents with the Form I-9, it may appear that the employer asked workers for specific or more documentation, or limited their choice of documentation, during the Form I-9 process.

Training

Make sure that the people who handle hiring and onboarding processes receive training on discrimination based on citizenship, immigration status, and national origin.

Clearly explain in any applicable policies and trainings that the Form I-9 process is separate from export compliance assessment, and each has different procedures, purposes, and requirements.

Next steps

Export compliance assessments and screening of personnel is complex. Companies need to fully understand immigration laws, anti-discriminations laws and export control laws.1

References

1 For more information about these topics please review the following publications: “Export Controls and Immigration: Balancing Export Control Compliance with Anti-Discrimination Laws” (Dec. 17, 2021); Compliance Best Practices: Employing, Screening, and Collaborating with Non-U.S. Nationals, Beth Peters et al., Practicing Law Institute (Sept. 29, 2015); M. Beth Peters, David W. Burgett and Joy E. Sturm, “Complying with Immigration, Export Control, and Industrial Security Requirements When Working Collaboratively with Foreign National: A Case Study,” The International Lawyer 35.1 (May 21, 2001); M. Beth Peters, David W. Burgett and Joy E. Sturm, “Foreign Nationals in U.S. Technology Programs: Complying with Immigration, Export Control, Industrial Security and Other Requirements,” Immigration Briefings, (Oct. 2000).

People who need legal representation while navigating immigration courts are struggling to find it.

Maine Public's Ari Snider tells us why there's a shortage of immigration attorneys and how groups are trying to stretch limited resources.

April 18, 2023 Portland – the Other One – Should be a Wakeup Call for All

While distressing, it’s not surprising that towns adjacent to the U.S. — Mexico border incur large populations of illegal aliens and asylum seekers. After all, every month more than 200,000 of them waltz through Biden’s open-door stretching from San Diego, California, to Brownsville, Texas, many settling in nearby communities. The big surprise is that after crossing onto U.S. soil, hundreds of migrants are choosing to journey 2,300 miles north to the unlikely city of Portland…the one in Maine, while they await their asylum hearings.

Despite the distance and chilly climate, Portland’s toasty-warm, sanctuary city-style hospitality, liberal benefits, and disregard for lawful status more than compensates. Portland, Maine, codified its status as a sanctuary city under a 2017 ordinance prohibiting local officials from honoring ICE detainers. Consequently, word-of-mouth is out on this once-quintessential New England town as a preferred migrant hub.

This small city of 68,311 has big problems. Since January, 930 asylum seekers have arrived in Portland, 80 more each week, most in dire need of housing assistance. This steady influx has forced officials to place them in 12 local hotels, school gymnasiums, and now for a second time, in Portland’s large Exposition Center. Costs have skyrocketed such that the city’s social services budget has increased $43 million over last year, with the state and the Federal Emergency Management Agency picking up part of the tab. Making matters worse, local officials are warning that $43 million is not enough and are now suggesting a whopping 15 percent increase in local property taxes to pay the bills. Even local officials are crying “uncle.” Portland’s Director of Health and Human Services recently advised DHS that, “if your organization sends a family to Portland, Maine they’re no longer guaranteed shelter upon their arrival to our shelter.”

Yet they keep coming, and that’s on top of the population of earlier migrants who have been arriving for years. A seemingly closely-held secret is the total number of migrants now living in Portland, which leads one to believe that local officials don’t really want the public to know. One clue may exist forty minutes north of Portland in Lewiston. Of that city’s 36,000 residents, 6,000 are now African refugees and asylum-seekers. If proportional, Portland may have over 10,000.

Overwhelming and unsustainable best describes the unfolding crisis in Portland, but even before the recent surge, the city had housing challenges serving its homeless population. One large nonprofit in Portland reports that all three of their shelters have been full, while 75 homeless residents overflow nightly into tents on the street. In response, Portland just opened a 50,000-square-foot, $24 million, 208-bed shelter. On its opening day, it filled to capacity.

Schools are being hit hard. Currently, the Portland school district has more than 2,300 students who come from homes where at least 60 different languages are spoken, representing about 34 percent of total enrollment. 1,400 of these students are identified as English Language Learners. The district said it has seen 612 new multilingual students begin this year, the highest in more than 20 years. In order to adequately educate the growing number of migrants, Maine will need to increase its number of LEP-qualified teachers by as much as 110 percent.

Although it has a current emergency, in truth, Portland’s migrant crisis has been brewing for years thanks to longstanding sanctuary policies and far-left, virtue-signaling local officials, and increasingly radical NGOs working on behalf of migrants, oblivious to the needs of local citizens. The Maine Immigrant and Legal Advocacy Project, for one, militantly denies that Portland’s resources are tapped out. Instead, the NGO claims the real problem is, “the result of “poor federal government planning in furtherance of a racist and xenophobic immigration system that disproportionately harms Black, Brown, and marginalized immigrants.”

And the choreography between Maine’s Chamber of Commerce, and Senator Susan Collins isn’t helping much either. The Chamber cites the state’s low unemployment rate as justification to support endless flows of people. But alas, asylum seekers face a required federal waiting period before they can hold a job, so Collins has come to their rescue. Her proposed bill would grant instant employment eligibility for migrants, never mind that doing so will provide even more incentive for people to fraudulently claim asylum in pursuit of work permits. And that new labor pool the Chamber longs for will, in fact, be publicly subsidized workers whose housing, health, and educational costs more than offset any tax contributions.

Things are a real mess in Portland, a place Longfellow once referred to as, “the beautiful city by the sea.”

For now, the state’s official slogan “Maine, the Way Life Should Be” is still displayed on highway signs welcoming all who enter. But if the migrant crisis in Portland isn’t soon resolved by imposing sensible limits and enforcing rational laws, that quaint motto should be revised so that it serves as an ominous warning to visitors facing similar futures in their states:

“Welcome to Maine, the Way Life Will Be.”

APR 18, 2023

Immigrant Workers Lead Strike Against Billionaire Catsimatidis

Immigrant workers are leading the longest strike in the U.S. against United Metro, an oil company owned by former mayoral candidate John Catsimatidis.

André Soleyn, 55, and two dozen of his fellow United Metro Energy Corp. workers never wanted to go on strike in the first place. After the workers voted to join Teamsters Local 553 in December 2018, the company dragged its feet in negotiating a fair contract for three years. Feeling like they were left with no choice, the workers decided to take collective action.

“It was a last resort,” Soleyn said.

Tuesday, April 18, marks the two-year anniversary of the strike. Yet, Soleyn and the rest of the striking United Metro workers see no end in sight as they enter the third year of their walkout, which has now become the nation’s longest current ongoing strike.

“It’s been really really tough not just for us, but on all of our families,” Soleyn said.

Roots of the Struggle

United Metro, a Brooklyn-based oil company that supplies fuel throughout the New York metro area, is owned by the flamboyant billionaire and former Republican mayoral candidate John Catsimatidis. He also owns the Gristedes supermarket chain and WABC, a conservative radio station where he hosts a popular talk show, The Cats Roundtable.

According to the Teamsters, for years the immigrant workers at United Metro’s Brooklyn terminals were paid wages 20 percent lower than other unionized terminals. Throughout the first year of the pandemic, workers continued to provide gasoline, diesel, and heating oil to schools, hospitals, and mass transit across the five boroughs while they worked without a contract.

Soleyn, originally from the Caribbean nation of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, has worked as a terminal operator at United Metro since 2014. He says he was paid $26 an hour but that some of the newer workers made $16 an hour for potentially hazardous work.

“It’s absolutely dangerous,” he said. “Anything could have happened, whether it’s a fire or a leak.”

According to Soleyn, the company had a cavalier attitude when it came to safety. He claims the company was failing to provide workers with the proper PPE when they were required to work during the height of the pandemic. He said that the lack of proper Covid protection only amplified the already unsafe conditions they were forced to endure.

“It’s a lot of responsibility,” said Soleyn. “You have 5.5 million gallons of flammable product there.”

While workers at United Metro continued to work without a contract, tensions between the workers and management came to a head in 2021 when the company refused to resume the contract negotiations they suspended in 2020 because of the pandemic.

The workers’ core demands were affordable healthcare coverage and higher wages, which became even more urgent during the pandemic. Growing exhausted with the slow pace of the negotiations, the workers decided to walk off the job on April 19, 2021.

“The guys agreed that we must go on strike because we can’t continue to live like that,” said Soleyn. “It was a matter of principle.”

During the first few months of the strike, morale was high. The workers would hold daily picket lines outside the terminal’s gate. They also received a wave of financial support from other Teamsters locals around the country as well as solidarity support from the Brooklyn chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Digging Trenches

Early negotiations, however, proved to be a bad omen for the workers. When the union scheduled Zoom meetings with Catsimatidis, the billionaire would show up late, and during lunchtime, he would sometimes leave and never come back. Soon, all communication with Catsimatidis ceased. Union officials said they haven’t had a single meeting with Catsimatidis in six months.

Soleyn said that during the few times they met, he felt Catsimatidis was deliberately disrespectful to them because they were all immigrants of color.

“There are a significant amount of us who are immigrants,” he said. “We are in vulnerable categories and Catsimatidis is taking advantage of us because as immigrants we have to work and we don’t have the option of doing other things.”

Demos P. Demopoulos, secretary-treasurer and executive officer of Teamsters Local 553, found Catsimatidis, himself an immigrant from Greece, unreasonable in refusing to negotiate in good faith.

“He’s stubborn,” he said. “He doesn’t want to recognize that these members deserve the same wages and benefits that the whole rest of the industry is getting.”

As the walkout dragged on, the strike funds that were sustaining the picket line dried up. Workers could no longer afford to stand on the picket. With no income, they were forced to find other jobs.

“After all this time I can’t expect the men to stand out there after two years,” said Demopoulos. “So for now I got them working at other places so they can earn some income for their families but they have suffered, suffered greatly. It was over a year they were not working.”

As one of the leaders of the strike, Soleyn was the first of eight workers illegally fired in retaliation. With three daughters, two in college to support, Soleyn was forced to take a part-time job at another oil terminal. As a result, his wife became the family’s primary breadwinner, and to make ends meet they had to rely on food pantries.

“In my situation, I had to depend totally on my wife,” he said. “Thankfully, she has a job but it was so tough because we had to budget down to the penny on just about everything.”

Still, as workers struggled to secure modest raises in wages, Catsimatidis’s wealth has only increased, from $3.1 billion in 2019 to $4.1 billion in 2023. Since 2012, the state has spent tens of millions on contracts with United Metro.

Catsimatidis nor his representatives returned Documented’s multiple requests for comment.

The union challenged the firings with The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). On Aug. 19, 2022, the NLRB ruled that the eight fired workers were unlawfully fired in retaliation for striking and that they have a right to return back to work without prejudice. But in order for the workers to return, they would have to abandon the strike.

“I don’t think that’s fair,” said Soleyn. “After so many years on strike, they want you to forget about the union, forget about the vote. Something is not right about that.”

Odds of Victory Grow Slim

As strikes go on, the less likely they are to succeed, Joshua Murray, an associate professor of sociology at Vanderbilt University who studies strikes, explained.

“The longer it goes on it does increase the damage to the company but it does increase the damage to the workers and usually the company has reserves of money, so the longer it goes, the harder for the workers to sustain,” he said.

Over the course of the strike, the workers were not able to disrupt the terminal’s business operation. United Metro hired workers to replace the strikers in 2021 and United Metro truck drivers continued to make pick-ups and deliveries. When the truck drivers tried to take solidarity actions, the company threatened to retaliate.

“The drivers were afraid to make that move because one or two drivers that did come out to support the rest of the workers trying to organize, Catsimatidis threatened to take away their medical benefits imminently, and that scared some of the guys,” said Demopoulos.

Regardless of the odds, Soleyn is refusing to call it quits.

“I feel if I start something I must see it through and finish it,” he said. “It wouldn’t just benefit me but more so the younger guys and the guys that come after.”

April 19, 2023 Britain expects up to 56,000 immigrants to arrive in small boats this year

LONDON, April 19 (Reuters) - Britain is anticipating that 56,000 migrants will cross the Channel in small boats to its shores this year, court documents show, meaning it would be need to house as many as 140,000 asylum seekers.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has made stopping boat arrivals one of his five priorities after the number of migrants arriving on the south coast of England soared to a record level in 2022 of more than 45,000, up 500% in the last two years.

Already this year, more than 5,000 more people have arrived in Britain across the Channel.

In court documents submitted as part of a case being brought against it at London's High Court on Wednesday, the government said as of March it was estimated to be accommodating more than 109,000 asylum seekers, with 48,000 in hotels at a cost of 6.2 million pounds ($7.7 million) per day.

"Significantly, the number needing support is predicted to grow still further: Home Office operational plans are based on scenarios of up to 56,000 small boat arrivals in 2023," the document said. "That would take the supported population to between 120,000 and 140,000."

Anger over immigration has become a big issue in British politics, and in March, Sunak's Conservative government announced a new law which would bar anyone who arrived in a small boat from claiming asylum and see them deported back to their homeland or a safe third country.

Last year, Britain agreed a deal to send tens of thousands of migrants more than 4,000 miles away (6,400 km) to Rwanda but so far no one has been deported while the courts decide whether the policy is lawful.

In the meantime, the government is examining using military bases or large barges to house asylum seekers, but that has prompted anger from some Conservative-run councils over plans to accommodate migrants in disused sites in their areas.

One of those, Braintree Council which covers an area to the northeast of London, was seeking an injunction at the High Court on Wednesday to prevent the government using an air base for this purpose.

($1 = 0.8055 pounds)

Reporting by Michael Holden and Sam Tobin, Editing by Angus MacSwan

MARRIAGE IMMIGRATION: REQUIREMENTS, PROCESS, AND CHALLENGES

The K-1 visa is a non-immigrant visa for the fiancé(e) of a US citizen.

If the fiance wishes to enter the US to get married, applying for this particular visa is often the first step. Let’s look into marriage immigration. In this guide, we’ll cover the prerequisites, eligibility, application process, common obstacles, and common mistakes in getting marriage-based immigration to the US.

Without further ado, let’s dive right into it.

Marriage Immigration: What, Why, and How?

Marriage immigration refers to the process of obtaining permanent residency in a foreign country through marriage to a citizen or permanent resident of that country. It is a popular pathway for couples who want to live together in the same country. Marriage-based immigration allows foreign spouses to legally work, study, and reside in the country of their spouse.

The reasons for pursuing marriage immigration vary widely, from seeking better career opportunities to being able to live together as a family. Some may have fallen in love while studying abroad or while traveling, while others may have met through online dating websites.

Regardless of the reason, the process can be complex and challenging. Here are the steps:

The US citizen or permanent resident spouse must file a petition with the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to sponsor their foreign spouse. This involves filling out and submitting Form I-130, along with supporting documentation such as marriage certificates and proof of US citizenship or permanent residency.

Once the petition is approved, the foreign spouse will be eligible to apply for an immigrant visa at a US consulate or embassy in their home country. This involves filling out and submitting Form DS-260, attending an interview with a consular officer, and undergoing a medical examination.

If the visa application is approved, the foreign spouse can then enter the US on an immigrant visa and receive their green card, which grants them permanent residency status.

If the foreign spouse is already in the US on a nonimmigrant visa, they may be able to adjust their status to permanent residency without leaving the country.

It’s important to comply with all eligibility requirements and provide accurate and complete documentation. We also recommend seeking the assistance of an experienced immigration attorney to help navigate the complex and often confusing process of marriage immigration to the US.

Eligibility Requirements: Age, Residency, and Relationship Status

To be eligible for marriage immigration to the US, the petitioner (the US citizen or lawful permanent resident sponsoring their spouse) and the beneficiary (the foreign national spouse seeking to enter the US) must meet certain requirements. The petitioner must be a US citizen or lawful permanent resident, be at least 18 years of age, and be able to prove that the marriage is genuine and not entered solely for immigration purposes.

The beneficiary must also meet certain requirements, such as being legally married to the petitioner and having a valid marriage certificate, and not being inadmissible to the US based on criminal or medical grounds. In addition, the beneficiary must be able to provide evidence of a bona fide relationship with the petitioner, such as photographs, joint bank accounts, and shared property.

It's worth noting that the eligibility requirements can vary depending on the specific circumstances of the case, and it's important to consult with an experienced immigration attorney to ensure that you meet all the requirements for marriage immigration to the US.

A reliable marriage immigration lawyer is highly recommended if you find yourself stuck at any stage.

Common Challenges: Language Barriers, Cultural Differences, and Legal Issues

One of the most significant challenges is navigating language barriers and cultural differences, particularly if one spouse is not a fluent English speaker or is unfamiliar with American customs and traditions. Another common obstacle is dealing with legal issues such as incorrect paperwork, missing documents, or failing to meet eligibility criteria.

It is essential to consult with an experienced immigration attorney who can guide you through the process and help you avoid common mistakes. These errors can cause significant delays, additional expenses, or even denial of your application.

It is also crucial to note that immigration policies and procedures can change quickly, so staying up-to-date with the latest information and requirements is crucial. By working with a knowledgeable immigration attorney, you can minimize the risks and improve your chances of success in obtaining a marriage-based immigration visa to the US.

A good fiance visa lawyer can be a great help.

Mistakes to Avoid

Avoid the following errors and be 100% prepared.

Not meeting the requirements: The K-1 visa has specific eligibility requirements, including being in a genuine relationship with a U.S. citizen, having met in person within the past two years, and not having any disqualifying criminal or medical history.

Insufficient evidence: It is important to provide sufficient evidence of the relationship, such as photos, letters, and other forms of communication.

Lack of preparation for the interview: Applicants will be required to attend an interview at the U.S. embassy or consulate in their home country.

In Conclusion

Marriage is one of the most common ways for a foreign national to obtain legal permanent residency in the United States. However, the process of obtaining a marriage-based visa can be complicated and time-consuming. Some specific requirements and procedures must be followed, as well as potential challenges and obstacles that may arise.

Hopefully, we helped give you a better idea regarding the requirements, process, and challenges of getting a K-1 visa. If you still have any confusion, we recommend you get in touch with a reputable immigration law firm Chicago.