Immigration Politics Georgia

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

Fast Facts Archives

AJC headline tells readers door to higher education closed to immigrants in Georgia!

By

 

Photo: Twitter

 

 

Oh, my! The Feb 4, 2021 headline in the liberal AJC’s “Get Schooled” blog “OPINION: Open door to higher education for immigrants” tells us the door to higher education is closed to immigrants! Can you imagine how horrible the state of Georgia must be?

But wait, the sub-headline is “Bill introduced by Republican legislator would restore in-state tuition for young immigrants.”

Ah, so maybe it’s not that immigrants cannot get a college education in the Peach State after all. Maybe the AJC’s problem with Georgia is that young immigrants must pay out-of-state tuition – at public universities?

Nope, that isn’t true either.

Actually the state’s taxpayer funded University System of Georgia is ruled by the autonomous Board of Regents and that body has a policy offering instate tuition rates to immigrants. But – and here is the real problem the AJC and the people who wrote the opinion column have with Georgia – the benefit is for legal immigrants. And refugees. And asyleees. Pretty mean, eh?

Legal immigrants, also known as Lawful Permanent Residents have what are widely referred to as ‘green cards.” The Regents policy does not allow illegal aliens to access instate tuition.

It’s right there in the Board of Regents Policy Manual

4.3 Student Residency.

4.3.1 Out-of-State Enrollment & 4.3.2 Classification of Students for Tuition Purposes

4.3.2.3 Non-Citizens

“A non-citizen student shall not be classified as in-state for tuition purposes unless the student is legally in this state and there is evidence to warrant consideration of in-state classification as determined by the Board of Regents. Lawful permanent residents, refugees, asylees, or other eligible noncitizens as defined by federal Title IV regulations may be extended the same consideration as citizens of the United States in determining whether they qualify for in-state classification.

International students who reside in the United States under non-immigrant status conditioned at least in part upon intent not to abandon a foreign domicile shall not be eligible for in-state classification.”

The liberal AJC headline is over an opinion column from two advocates, Sofia Bork and Munir Meghjani. They seem very confused about the regents policy.

“Unfortunately, Georgia’s growing immigrant community has been locked out of the system that could propel them to reach their full potential, benefiting both their community and our state’s workforce. We have seen scores of family and friends struggle to make ends meet to afford the same education we received” they tell us.

If you have already guessed that the column is really about promoting state legislation to give illegal aliens instate tuition, you are on the right track.

The bill being sold is House Bill 120 from Republican Rep Kasey Carpenter of Dalton. Carpenter – and his mostly Democrat co-sponsors – want to provide illegal aliens with the much lower instate tuition rate than the regents allow U.S. citizens and legal immigrants from most other states to pay.

In liberal parlance, it’s fairness to “immigrants.”

Rep Carpenter says his bill is all about illegal aliens with DACA status. It’s not. DACA is not mentioned anywhere in the bill. But that isn’t part of the advocate’s column in the AJC. Rep Carpenter says illegal aliens with DACA are somehow ‘lawfully present’ in the United States. The 11th Circuit Appellate Court says DACA does not provide lawful presence. We wrote it up here.

None of that is in the opinion column in the liberal AJC.  It’s worth a read if you aren’t already convinced the editors at the AJC are driven by an open borders agenda and they are quite willing to smear real immigrants to push that cause.

AJC Get Schooled editor Maureen Downey. Photo: Twitter.

The AJC “Get Schooled” blog is run by AJC editor Maureen Downey who we suspect wrote the headline.

##

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

FAST FACT: Biden plan calls for increasing immigration and dismantling enforcement

By

Joe Biden takes a knee to the Marxist Black Lives Matter, July, 2020. Photo: The GuardianBiden has adopted the Sanders’ plan to halt all deportations during the first 100 days of his presidency. In other words, he’s offering a 3-month open invitation for anyone in the world to come to the United States, so they can take advantage of the massive amnesty that he also promises.Biden has adopted the Sanders’ plan to halt all deportations during the first 100 days of his presidency. In other words, he’s offering a 3-month open invitation for anyone in the world to come to the United States, so they can take advantage of the massive amnesty that he also promises.Biden has adopted the Sanders’ plan to halt all deportations during the first 100 days of his presidency. In other words, he’s offering a 3-month open invitation for anyone in the world to come to the United States, so they can take advantage of the massive amnesty that he also promises.

 

Biden has been known as a moderate voice in the modern Democratic Party, willing to strike deals by reaching across the aisle. On immigration, his career NumbersUSA immigration-reduction grade of a D, while not good, places him in the middle of all Congressional Democrats since 1990. But compared with current Congressional Democrats, Biden would rank among the best 10%.

Unfortunately, instead of attempting to convince the more progressive wing of the Party that moderation on immigration is a more popular position, the “unity plan” capitulates to the radical wing of the Party that supports policies that would effectively create open borders. The days of Barbara Jordan’s Democratic Party that put the interests of American workers ahead of foreign workers and the businesses that profit from cheap labor are long gone.

LEGAL IMMIGRATION

While Biden refers to the Gang of 8 plan multiple times throughout his immigration platform, he forgets that one of the few bright spots in the Gang of 8 plan was its elimination of the Visa Lottery. Both his official plan and the “unity plan” call for the continuation of the Lottery.

We believe we should … preserve the critical role of diversity preferences in our immigration system.

Biden also calls for an increase in the number of employment-based green cards, including an exemption from the numerical limits for foreign students who graduate from U.S. colleges and universities with an advanced degree.

He calls for changes to the family chain migration categories, including exempting spouses and children of green card holders from numerical limits without offsets and issuing visas and work permits to any extended family members on the family-preference backlog due to annual caps.

Biden further calls for an increase of the H-1B higher-wage guest worker program and the streamlining of the H-2 guest worker programs.

Lastly, Biden adopts the Libertarian plan that was pushed by Democratic hopeful Pete Buttigieg to create a new visa program for states and local communities to utilize for “economic development”. One key goal of this is to add immigrants into depopulated cities that Americans have been fleeing.

Biden’s call for more immigration and guest workers, especially when nearly 50 million Americans have filed for unemployment since February and the nation faces months, if not years, of economic uncertainty, is a slap in the face to American workers of all skills.

AMNESTY

During the debates last fall, Biden was one of the few Democratic hopefuls who still believed in the rule of law. While most of the candidates for the Party’s nomination sought to abolish ICE and decriminalize illegal border crossings, Biden at least recognized that immigration enforcement is necessary.

He apparently no longer does.

Biden has adopted the Sanders’ plan to halt all deportations during the first 100 days of his presidency. In other words, he’s offering a 3-month open invitation for anyone in the world to come to the United States, so they can take advantage of the massive amnesty that he also promises.

Supporting an amnesty for nearly every illegal alien in the United States is not a new position for Biden; he called for a mass amnesty during the debates, and in 2013, he supported the Gang of 8’s mass amnesty bill. Highlights of his plan include speedier amnesties for “Dreamers” and agricultural workers, while adopting a bipartisan House plan that would force existing illegal Ag workers into indentured servitude before receiving their amnesty…. Read the rest here from NumbersUSA.com. 

FAST FACT: Chamber of Commerce: ‘Crucial’ to Import Foreign Workers While 30M Americans Unemployed

By

 

Image: Getty, via Breitbart News

United States Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Donahue says it is “crucial” that businesses be allowed to continue importing foreign visa workers even as 30 million Americans remain unemployed due to the Chinese coronavirus crisis.

Donahue sent a letter to President Donald Trump asking that he not halt foreign visa worker programs — such as the H-1B visa, the L visa, the H-2B visa, and the OPT program — claiming businesses need the foreign workers to fill American jobs. Read the rest here at Breitbart News.

FAST FACT: A majority of H-1B employers use the program to pay migrant workers well below market wages

By

Photo: New Indian Express

H-1B visas and prevailing wage level

Key takeaways

H-1B is a flawed visa program:

  • DOL lets H-1B employers undercut local wages. Sixty percent of H-1B positions certified by the U.S. Department of Labor are assigned wage levels well below the local median wage for the occupation. While H-1B program rules allow this, DOL has the authority to change it—but hasn’t.
  • A small number of employers dominate the program. While over 53,000 employers used the H-1B program in 2019, the top 30 H-1B employers accounted for more than one in four of all 389,000 H-1B petitions approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in 2019.
  • Outsourcing firms make heavy use of the H-1B program. Half of the top 30 H-1B employers use an outsourcing business model to provide staff for third-party clients, rather than employing H-1B workers directly to fill a special need at the company that applies for the visa.
  • Major U.S. firms use the H-1B program to pay low wages. Among the top 30 H-1B employers are major U.S. firms including Amazon, Microsoft, Walmart, Google, Apple, and Facebook. All of them take advantage of program rules in order to legally pay many of their H-1B workers below the local median wage for the jobs they fill.

Read much more here from the Economic Policy Institute.

 

Fast Fact: Refugees Are Being Resettled Despite the Chinese Coronavirus Pandemic

By

Image: WSJ.com

More than 3,000 resettled since late January, when pandemic task force was created

“Rush, the Center’s senior researcher and author of the analysis, said, “I am concerned that these refugees were not tested for the coronavirus before their arrival. I couldn’t find any indication they were anywhere. Let’s assume they were, and the results came back negative (we are told that even if one is tested negative it doesn’t mean one is not carrying the virus), were they quarantined upon arrival? Were there any follow-ups to make sure they were fine? Were governors of the states they were placed in (such as California, Washington, Texas, New York, etc.) made aware of such arrivals and risks?”

Read much more here while you are sheltered in place…

 

 

Fast Fact – What is a “Public Charge?”

By

Image: USCIS
USCIS
Public Charge

Q. What is a public charge and when does it apply?

A. For purposes of determining inadmissibility, “public charge” means an individual who is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.

A number of factors must be considered when making a determination that a person is likely to become a public charge.

Under Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), an individual seeking admission to the United States or seeking to adjust status to that of an individual lawfully admitted for permanent residence (Green Card) is inadmissible if the individual, “at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge.” Public charge does not apply in naturalization proceedings. If an individual is inadmissible, admission to the United States or adjustment of status is not granted.  Much more here from USCIS.