Immigration Politics Georgia

looking for a better life • news and pro-enforcement opinion

Search Results for: appeals court

Appellate Court: Not lawfully present, illegal aliens with DACA are illegal aliens – Georgia issuing public benefits based on disputed status

By

 

Image: Istockphoto.com

Ruling likely will lead to additional legal action on public benefits

DACA recipients are “inadmissible and thus removable” under federal law.

Illegal aliens who have been awarded deferred action on deportation proceedings through the DACA amnesty by both the Obama and Trump administrations are illegal aliens and do not have “lawful presence” says the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision was handed down March 6, 2019.

The ruling was in response to a suit brought by several illegal aliens in Georgia who are challenging the Board of Regents policy that requires lawful presence for instate tuition purposes and admittance to some USG universities.

According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Georgia is home to more illegal aliens than is Arizona. Statistics from the Washington DC – based Migration Policy Institute highlighted by the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute indicate that Georgia has more illegal aliens than green card holders.

Image: GBPI.org

A group of DACA recipients sued the leaders of the Georgia higher education system in 2016, which bars aliens who are not “lawfully present” from enrolling in some Georgia colleges and universities, even if they would academically qualify for admission. “The students argued that they were lawfully present under federal law, which preempted  state law. They also claimed that the admissions bar violated their right to equal protection, as Georgia treats aliens who are paroled into the U.S. or granted asylum as “lawfully present,” reported the Immigration Reform Law Institute.

The Eleventh Circuit rejected all of the students’ claims. The court noted that  “lawfully present” is not a standalone immigration classification, and it is not defined anywhere in the (Immigration and Nationality) Act” *(opinion here).

The ruling is consistent with an official October 2017 statement to this writer from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that “current law does not grant any legal status for the class of individuals who are current recipients of DACA. Recipients of DACA are currently unlawfully present in the U.S. with their removal deferred.”

Decision may lead to additional legal action on access to public benefits

The court’s decision likely portends more legal action. Georgia’s public benefits law, OCGA 50-36-1, requires “lawful presence” for non-citizens to access a host of public benefits, including drivers licenses, official ID Cards, health benefits, food stamps, insurance licenses and unemployment benefits. While it goes largely unreported by the Georgia media, various official agencies have been quietly issuing these benefits to DACA recipients since 2012 based on the applicant’s oath on affidavits that they are a “qualified alien.”

The monetary cost to Georgia taxpayers for benefits to the illegal aliens with deferred action on deportation, both in and outside of DACA is unknown.

Updated, 4:50PM March 8, 2019. Updated July 26, 2020 with addition of link to affidavit. Updated July 30, 2020 with link to “qualified alien.”

FAST FACT: Almost 1.15 million aliens in the United States are seeking asylum — enough to make them the 43rd largest state

By

Image: USCIS

Astounding Asylum Numbers in DOS Refugee Report for FY 2021

Center for Immigration Studies

October 28, 2020

Art Arthur

The Department of State (DOS) — with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) — transmitted their Report to Congress on Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2021 on September 30. My colleague Nayla Rush broke down that report, and the changes that the Biden-Harris ticket has proposed to the number of entries, in an October 6 post, but three statistics stick out therein: the number of aliens seeking asylum from DHS, the number seeking asylum as relief from removal from the immigration courts, and the credible fear grant rate in FY 2020.

Aliens who are present in the United States may seek what is called “affirmative asylum” from asylum officers (AOs) in U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), an agency in DHS. AOs may grant or deny those aliens asylum.

If an AO opts not to grant the alien asylum, and the alien is removable (as most are), the AO can refer the alien to immigration court (part of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) within the Department of Justice (DOJ)), for the alien to renew that application as a defensive application (relief from removal) in removal proceedings.

In addition to adjudicating those affirmative asylum applications, AOs also consider “credible fear” claims for aliens in expedited removal proceedings under section 235(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Those AOs can find that the alien has credible fear (in which case the alien is referred to immigration court to file an asylum application before an immigration judge (IJ) in removal proceedings), or determine that the alien does not have credible fear (in which case the alien can ask an IJ to review the AO’s decision).

There were an average of 500 to 550 AOs at USCIS in recent years (USCIS is authorized for 745 AOs), but last year USCIS announced that it planned to hire 500 new employees in the asylum branch of the agency (half of whom would be AOs; the rest staff), and, as of October 2019, they were on track to meet that goal. In a February 2020 report, however, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) was critical of USCIS’s efforts to train those AOs to perform credible fear screenings.

The number of such credible fear referrals skyrocketed in FY 2019, as almost one million aliens entered the United States illegally along the Southwest border or sought entry without proper documents at the ports of entry along that border. As GAO noted: “The number of referrals for credible fear screenings in the first two quarters of fiscal year 2019 alone was larger than the total number of referrals in each of fiscal years 2014 and 2015.”

In fact, AOs completed 5,523 credible fear cases in FY 2009, but in FY 2019, it completed 102,204 (out of 105,439 cases received) — a more than 1,750 percent increase. To help out, DHS assigned refugee officers, former AOs, and (in a controversial move), Border Patrol agents to handle interviews. A federal judge blocked that last effort in August.

All of which brings me back to the DOS report. As of August 31, according to the department, there were 598,692 asylum claims (in addition to credible fear claims) pending with USCIS. Assuming that there were the authorized 745 AOs on that date (the actual number — a moving target — is hard to find), that means that each AO is assigned almost 804 cases to adjudicate — not counting new cases that will be added.

In my experience, AOs generally take two hours to conduct interviews and complete about two per day, but USCIS’s statistics show a much lower completion rate. In September 2019, according to USCIS, AOs conducted 2,799 interviews and completed 6,286 cases. Assuming that there were 500 AOs at the time (likely on the low side), that means they each held 5.6 interviews each that month and completed 12.6 cases per capita — much fewer than one a day.

On top of the AOs’ asylum workload, according to DOS, there were 549,724 asylum claims (as of June 30) pending with the nation’s 520 IJs (the latter as of October — 20 new IJs were on-boarded on October 9, meaning that the number in June was actually closer to 500).

Again, that means that each IJ is assigned 1,057 asylum cases. As a former IJ, I generally completed one to two asylum cases per day, and at best IJs can hear approximately four (assuming that the alien shows up and is ready to go at the merits hearing date, which does not always happen). Consequently, as the Transactional Records Action Clearinghouse (TRAC) reported, in 2019 asylum applicants in immigration court on average waited almost three years for their cases to be decided, time that they will spend in the United States — and a timeframe that does not count appeals.

And, again, the DOS report does not count any new asylum cases that have been filed in the interim in immigration court.

Combined, however, these statistics show that there were 1,148,416 pending asylum cases in the United States — at a minimum. If those applicants were a state, they would be the 43rd largest in the United States, ahead of Montana, Rhode Island, Delaware, the Dakotas, Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming.

Plus, as the foregoing shows, an asylum applicant denied by USCIS can renew his or her claim with the immigration court. In September 2019, for example, AOs approved 34 percent of the asylum claims they adjudicated (1,501), and referred (for one reason or another) 66 percent (2,901). Those cases — assuming that the aliens actually appear in immigration court — will end up on the IJs’ dockets.

This is a hole that the AOs and IJs will not be able to dig themselves out of without a massive increase in resources.

The Trump administration has, in fact, increased the total number of IJs by 70 percent and, as noted, has at least tried to increase the number of AOs by 50 percent. Joe Biden vows to double the number of IJs (as well as the number of EOIR staff and interpreters), but that hiring will take time and a significant increase in resources — resources Congress, which is stingy when it comes to immigration, may not fund. Much more here.

 

ICE Is To Fast-Track Deportations Across The Country

By

Image: Dustin Inman Society

The new policy will give agents the ability to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants without a hearing in front of a judge

BuzzFeedNews

October 7, 202

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have started to implement a policy that allows officers to arrest and rapidly deport undocumented immigrants who have been in the US for less than two years, according to internal emails and documents obtained by BuzzFeed News.

The Trump administration’s effort — to expand quick deportations to undocumented immigrants across the US who cannot prove they have been in the country continuously for two years before they are picked up — was blocked by a federal court judge soon after the policy was first announced in 2019. But in June, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit lifted the preliminary injunction, opening the door for ICE officers to use expedited removal across the country, a policy that will allow the agency to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants without a hearing in front of an immigration judge.

The previous policy only allowed officials to use expedited removal within 100 miles of the border and for those who have been in the country for up to two weeks.

Currently, officers typically arrest immigrants and place them into deportation proceedings. These include a hearing before an immigration judge — a process that can take years. In practical terms, the expanded policy gives ICE officers more power to determine who can be quickly deported, although it’s unclear exactly how fast the process will be.

The shift could allow the Trump administration to increase deportations while circumventing a court system that is severely backed up and short on resources, but advocates for immigrants have said it would destroy their due process rights…

More here.

 

Open records request sent to Georgia Department of Labor today – Re: DDS as verification source of lawful presence

By

To: Mr. Timothy Mitchell
General Counsel
Georgia Department of Labor
Mr. Mitchell,
Please regard this email as my official request for copies of Georgia Department of Labor (GDOL) documents and records under state public records law.
I note that GDOL has an entry on its website (FAQs) informing readers that GDOL uses the Georgia Department of Drivers Services (DDS) to verify the lawful presence required by state law (OCGA 50-36-1) for aliens to qualify for public benefits.
“What is the Applicant Status Affidavit?

Georgia law requires that all applicants for UI benefits who are 18 years of age or older attest they are:

  • a United States citizen, or
  • a legal permanent resident, or
  • a non-citizen legally present in the United States.

The GDOL performs electronic verification of your lawful presence in the United States with the Georgia Department of Driver Services (DDS). The DDS validates the identity of individuals who indicate they have a Georgia-issued driver’s license or identification card.”

State law (OCGA 50-36-1) passed in 2006 and amended in 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013 mandates that this verification process for lawful presence be done using the federal SAVE program operated by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
1) Please send me a copy of any authorization or replacement law that would alter the GDOL requirement for SAVE verification and/or change verification source to DDS – including bill number, year passed into law and code section.
2) Please send me copies of any and all GDOL documents, emails, memorandums or policy files that pertain to or mention GDOL requesting or discussing a change in state law regarding GDOL’s direct use of the SAVE program and transferring the lawful presence verification to DDS with a time frame of from 1 January 2013 to 15 August 2020.
3) Please send me a copy of any agreement, MOU/MOA between USCIS and GDOL authorizing GDOL to use the SAVE program including original agreement and all renewals from July 1, 2006 to 15 August, 2020.
4) Please send me a copy of any official agreement between GDOL and DDS pertaining to DDS being the source and authority of verification of lawful presence of non-citizen applicants who apply for public benefits at GDOL – including any email, memorandums or proposals for GDOL to use DDS to verify lawful presence of GDOL applicants for public benefits.
5) Please send me a copy of any document that may illustrate the most recent date of a GDOL query to the SAVE program for verification of lawful presence of an applicant for the public benefit of unemployment insurance or other public benefit administered by GDOL.
6) Please send me copies of any/all internal GDOL email or memorandums or policy discussions that mention ‘Permanent Residence Under Color of Law’ (PRUCOL) including GDOL policy on PRUCOL creating eligibility for lawful presence or unemployment insurance and any correspondence between GDOL and DDS pertaining to PRUCOL.
7) Please send me a copies of any document or electronic form that serves as a transmittal of information from GDOL to DDS of information gathered from GDOL collected applications for unemployment insurance benefits.
8) Please send me copies of any and all internal email, memorandums, policy statement or records or correspondence pertaining to or mentioning federal deferred action on deportation or the Obama-invented DACA program for illegal aliens with a time frame of 1 July, 2012 to 15 August, 2020.
9) Please send me copies of any emails, memorandums or inquiries that ask for information on GDOL administering and or issuing unemployment insurance benefits for illegal aliens who have DACA status or other deferred action on deportation status.
10) Please send me copies of any/all GDOL emails, memorandums or internal correspondence pertaining to or mentioning the March 6, 2019 Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals finding that DACA recipients do not have lawful presence or legal status and are inadmissible and removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). For clarity, I link to that finding here.
11) Please send me any record or document that shows the response code received from the SAVE program to a query from GDOL on immigration status of an applicant with DACA status for unemployment insurance.
12) Please send any document, record, table or index that shows all possible responses and codes used by the SAVE program to answer GDOL queries on immigration status for applicants for public benefits including unemployment insurance benefits.
Please contact me at any time with questions on my request. Please expect this request to be one of several with a goal of gaining a clear and accurate understanding of GDOL policy and operations on administering public benefits/unemployment insurance.
Thank you for a timely reply. I look forward to your itemized estimate of research costs for my request.
Respectfully,
D.A. King
Marietta, GA.

I support the police.
All lives matter.

There’s ‘DACA’ and then there is more DACA? – Congressional candidates should be asked about amnesty

By

Illegal alien DACA recipient protesting for legalization. 2019 Photo: Texas Tribune

President Trump recently set off a firestorm of criticism from conservatives recently when he indicated his administration may push for some sort of amnesty for some illegal aliens and mentioned the DACA program. Questions should be asked about the deferred action on deportation for childhood arrivals, known as DACA and candidates position on legalization for illegal aliens.

We assume everyone concerned understands that the U.S. instituted an amnesty program in 1986 that was presented as a “one time” action that would legalize about a million and a half illegals and would be the end all solution to illegal immigration. The 1986 amnesty actually legalized almost three million illegal aliens. Most experts on both sides of the debate say it caused an increase in illegal immigration. We are told that there are at least 11 million illegal aliens in the USA today.

At about 375,000 to 400,000, DHS says Georgia is home to more illegal aliens than Arizona and the anti-enforcement Georgia Budget and Policy Institute shows that we have more illegals than Lawful Permanent Residents (green card holders). Estimates from the Federation for Immigration Reform are that illegal immigration costs Georgians about $2.5 billion each year.

When the topic of former president Obama’s DACA executive amnesty comes up, most media coverage leaves out important facts that should be part of the conversation.

DACA recipients are “inadmissible and thus removable” under federal law. 

Illegal aliens who have been awarded deferred action on deportation proceedings through the DACA amnesty by both the Obama and Trump administrations are illegal aliens and do not have “lawful presence” says the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision was handed down March 6, 2019. Here.

An honest discussion of an amnesty for “DACA” should recognize three groups of illegal aliens.

United We Dream poster in support of illegal alien “dreamers.” Twitter.
  • Group one: The number of illegal aliens that now have DACA status according to federal figures (March, 2020) presented by the Migration Policy Institute (see interactive map for state numbers) in Washington: 643,560. It should be noted that originally, almost 800,000 illegal aliens received the DACA benefit but some have lost that status due to criminal offense and some have used DACA to become U.S. citizens.
  • Group two: The number of illegal aliens that would be eligible for DACA (using the Obama guidelines set forth in 2012) if President Trump had not ended acceptance of new applications in September, 2017: 1,326,000
  • Group three – Call it the “next DACA generation.” The number of children who illegally crossed the border in recent years and who will soon be part of the demand for expanding DACA or creating a system of legalization for children who came over our borders as minors with or without parents. This number is estimated at at least one million by the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington.

Note that this figure is not static and will increase. Any conversation should include the topic of recurring legalization “for the children.”

*UPDATE, July 18, 2020:Federal court restores DACA after Supreme Court ruling

We must recognize that all sides agree that at least half of the illegal aliens in the nation today did not cross the border illegally but came on temporary visas and then refused to leave. For example, imaging a family that comes with a temporary worker or visitor on a tourist visa and instead of departing as agreed, simply buys a home and enrolls the now illegal aliens children in American schools and waits for another amnesty.

Visa overstays in 2019 are put at 497,272 by DHS. See page V here.

We note that there is little if any reference to the illegal alien parents who used their children to anchor themselves in the U.S. and are still living, working and driving in Georgia and the U.S. illegally while using stolen or fraudulent ID and Social Security numbers.

Finally, it must be noted that amnesty by any name does not result in increased Hispanic votes for Republicans. After the “one time” Reagan amnesty of 1986, Hispanics rewarded Republican George H.W. Bush with 30% of their vote – tough-talking Trump got 29% in 2016. We think amnesty is mostly for the benefit of the special interests in the business lobby.

Candidates for congress should be asked their plans and positions on solutions and if they will vote to legalize any illegal aliens and if so, what part of the above groups of “victims of borders.”