Written by: Taher Kameli, Esq. The Trump administration is often criticized for its anti-immigration policies. Apparently, another immigration issue about which the Trump administration can be questioned is how the government agencies that enforce immigration policy internally operate. Specifically, a new inspector general report raises concerns with the internal operations at the Department of Homeland Security (“ DHS ”). The inspector general report, titled, “Major Management and Performance Challenges Facing the Department of Homeland Security”, was issued on November 13. The report states, “Based on our recent and prior audits, inspections, special reviews, and
Written by: Taher Kameli, Esq. Among the 3 branches of the Federal government during the Trump administration, immigration policy generally has been characterized by inaction by the legislative branch, anti-immigration policies by the executive branch, and opposition to the executive branch by the judicial branch. As another example of the opposition to the Trump administration’s anti-immigration policies by the Federal judiciary, an Oregon federal judge has issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against the Trump administration policy denying visas to immigrants who cannot show proof of health insurance. On October 4, President Trump issued, “Presidential Proclamation
Written by: Taher Kameli, Esq. It often seems that there is no limit to the policies that the Trump administration will propose to limit immigration to the United States. Not only does the Trump administration implement its anti-immigration policies in the United States, but it also works with other countries to restrict immigration to the United States. As an example of the Trump administration using other countries to help implement its anti-immigration policies, pursuant to an “Asylum Cooperative Agreement” signed by the United States and Guatemala, on November 19, the Trump administration started sending certain asylum
Written by: Taher Kameli, Esq. While the Trump administration has consistently adopted anti-immigration policies, the various states and cities in the United States vary greatly in their views and attitudes toward immigrants. As a result, it is an important decision for immigrants in determining where to live in the United States and trying to reside in a favorable location for immigrants. To help immigrants in making this decision, a new study has ranked Chicago, Illinois as the number one city for immigrants in the United States. The study, released on November 13, was prepared by
Written by: Taher Kameli, Esq. While there is no doubt that President Trump generally supports policies that restrict immigrant rights, how the Trump administration achieves this objective can vary. In some cases, the Trump administration acts directly, announcing a new policy that expressly restricts immigrant rights. In other cases, the Trump administration acts more indirectly, setting forth a new policy that makes it harder for immigrants to attain their immigrant rights. As an example of an indirect limitation on immigrant rights, the Trump administration has proposed increases in certain immigration filing fees. As announced on
Written by: Taher Kameli, Esq. It has been a generally consistent pattern in U.S. immigration policy during the Trump administration – the Trump administration issues an anti-immigration policy, litigation is filed to challenge the policy, and a Federal court issues an injunction to stop the policy from being implemented. As another example of this occurrence of “government by injunction”, a Federal judge in Oregon has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from preventing immigrants who cannot afford health care from obtaining visas. On October 4, President Trump issued, “Presidential Proclamation on the Suspension of Entry of
Written by: Taher Kameli, Esq. An often overlooked disagreement in current U.S. immigration policy is between the Trump administration and certain so-called “sanctuary cities” – generally cities that have laws, regulations, policies, or other practices that obstruct Federal immigration enforcement. The Trump administration has sought to restrict certain Federal funding of “sanctuary cities”. However, on October 31, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction stopping the Trump administration from preventing certain Federal funding of “sanctuary cities”. Specifically, in 2017, as a requirement of receiving a Federal police grant (under the Edward
Written by: Taher Kameli, Esq. It has become a regular occurrence for the Trump administration to announce a new restriction on immigrant rights. Thus, it is noteworthy whenever the Trump administration makes an announcement that even somewhat expands immigrant rights. Such is the case with the announcement on October 28 that the Trump administration has extended the validity of work permits for El Salvadorans with temporary protected status (so-called “TPS”) through January 4, 2021. As background, TPS allows certain immigrants to remain in the United States and work legally without deportation if during the
Written by: Taher Kameli, Esq. President Trump has many groups of people that he dislikes – House Democrats, “Never Trump” Republicans, and the “mainstream media”. Besides these groups, in making a list of the persons disfavored by President Trump, asylum seekers and other detained migrants would also need to be included. In the latest example of the Trump administration taking action against asylum seekers and other detained migrants, on October 21, the Justice Department announced plans to collect DNA samples from asylum seekers and other detained migrants. As summarized in a “proposed rule” to
Written by: Taher Kameli, Esq. U.S. immigration policy since Donald Trump became President in January 2017 has generally followed a consistent path – the Trump administration will issue a controversial anti-immigration policy, litigation will be filed against the policy, and no one knows for certain if the policy will take effect until the litigation is resolved. Such is the case concerning the Trump administration’s final “public charge” rule, announced in August and due to take effect on October 15. However, on October 11, 3 Federal courts issued injunctions against the Trump administration’s final “public charge” rule.