Written by: Taher Kameli, Esq. Government positions on immigration issues are often expressed in ideological or political terms. However, more practically, it is the authorization of funds that actually implements these government positions. For example, “Build the Wall” is just a political argument; unless funds are actually authorized to build a wall at the southwest border, the government will not actually construct any wall. The importance of funding authorization by the government is exemplified by the action of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to move $271 million, including $155 million from the Disaster
Written by: Taher Kameli, Esq. The Trump administration has proposed many new anti-immigration policies against undocumented immigrants in the United States. However, a traditional approach to limit undocumented immigrants in the United States is to conduct a raid of a business where undocumented immigrants are known to be working and arrest them. The Trump administration is also willing to use this traditional method of restricting undocumented immigrants in the United States, as on August 7, the largest workplace immigration raids in the United States in at least a decade resulted in 680 arrests. These workplace
Written by: Taher Kameli, Esq. The anti-immigration policies of the Trump administration have especially harsh consequences when applied to migrant families. This point is especially true when these policies are applied to migrant children. As another example of the adverse policies of the Trump administration toward migrant children, on August 21, the Trump administration announced a final rule to change the Flores settlement and allow the longer detention of migrant children. The Flores settlement arose from the 1997 case of Flores v. Reno.
Written by: Taher Kameli, Esq. While it is often asserted that immigration programs can involve “life or death” consequences, this argument is especially applicable to the “medical deferred action” program. The “medical deferred action” program allows immigrants to remain in the United States for two-year periods if they can prove extreme medical need. Many of the immigrants covered by the “medical deferred action” program came to the United States through a visa or other permitted status for a period of time and are requesting to stay beyond this period of time to receive necessary medical treatment.
Written by: Taher Kameli, Esq. Throughout the country, many young adults are excitedly commencing their college years as freshmen. For those attending top-ranked schools, such as Harvard University, this excitement is probably even greater. However, in at least one case, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has turned this excitement into disappointment, as on August 23, incoming Harvard freshman Ismail B. Ajjawi was turned away from entering the United States by CBP. Ajjawi is a 17-year old Palestinian resident of Tyre, Lebanon. He arrived at Boston’s Logan International Airport as an accepted member of
Written by: Taher Kameli, Esq. Much has been written about the impact of the anti-immigration policies of the Trump administration regarding undocumented immigrants. However, it appears that the Trump administration is now seeking also to attack legal immigration. On August 12, the Trump administration announced a final “public charge” rule which can materially reduce legal immigration. Finalizing proposed regulations that were issued on October 10, 2018 (and received more than 260,000 public comments), this final “public charge” rule (published in the Federal Register on August 14) amends U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations
Written by: Taher Kameli, Esq. The Federal judiciary has frequently been relied on to block the anti-immigration policies of the Trump administration. However, as with any litigation, there is no guarantee as to how any Federal judge will rule on any specific immigration law issue. This point was made abundantly clear on July 24 when 2 Federal courts issued different rulings on the Trump administration’s effort to significantly restrict asylum protection for migrants. These 2 cases involved lawsuits against the new rule of the Trump administration (published in the Federal Register to be effective July
Written by: Taher Kameli, Esq. Probably the major limitation on the anti-immigration policies of the Trump administration has been decisions by the Federal judiciary to overturn certain of these policies in court cases. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Trump administration would try to restrict the ability of judges to review immigration cases. Specifically, on July 22, the Trump administration announced that it will expand its “expedited removal” deportation authority – the ability of immigration officers to deport migrants without them appearing before judges. In an executive order in January 2017, President Trump directed