Monthly Archives: February 2017

Immigrant Insecurity Leading to Loss of Home Sales Around U.S.

With Donald Trump’s executive orders on immigration having slammed the door on many legal entrants, not to mention the daily news stories about overzealous border officials interrogating upright U.S. citizens whose names they don’t like, it was only a matter of time before the real estate market felt the impact.

From Seattle to New York to the San Francisco Bay Area, reports are coming in about immigrants who are ceasing their home search or pulling out of actual purchase contracts.

These aren’t just immigrants from the countries blocked by Trump’s executive order, or ones who’ve been told they can’t live in the United States.

No, these are immigrants from around the world who are, as a Bay Area agent told the San Francisco Business Times, “nervous about spending that much money and maybe not staying here.”

An agent working on the Eastside in the Seattle area (where Microsoft and other tech companies are located) told the Seattle Times. “I understand the fear. I can’t tell someone, ‘Oh, don’t worry, you’ll get your visa renewed.’ Who knows? Things could change.”

(And just for the record, an immigration attorney could not, at this point, give the person any more solid reassurance. Trump has already used executive orders to fashion unprecedented sorts of change.)

Some agents say their clients worry that their country will be next on the list for an outright ban.

Will the U.S. real estate market feel the loss of these foreign buyers? Time will tell, but given that non-citizens typically invest around $100 billion per year in U.S. homes, according to Barron’s, this isn’t exactly small change.

And whether you’re a home seller or a home buyer from another country who’s worried about the long term, you might want to read about some of the legal issues involved in a canceled closing in Earnest Money: What Happens When Your Home Purchase Falls Through.

Mass Roundup of Undocumented Immigrants Comparable to Shooting Fish in a Barrel

Remember the old “shooting fish in a barrel” simile, connoting “ridiculously easy” according to the dictionary?

It apparently dates from the 1940s, presenting the idea that while free-swimming fish have a fair shot at survival, ones that you’ve captured in a barrel are, to mix metaphors, sitting ducks. None other than Mythbusters found that “you don’t even have to be a good shot to take out a barrel of fish with a single bullet.”

The phrase also carries a suggestion that, in a country that adulates sportsmanship and a fair fight, shooting fish in a barrel demonstrates neither.

Which brings me to current U.S. immigration enforcement actions.

Per the terms of Trump’s “Presidential Executive Order: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” pretty much everyone has become a top priority for removal from the United States. (In the past, criminals were the top priority, but the order redefined “crime” to include everything from crossing the border without papers to using a false Social Security Number in order to work to having been deemed, in the jaded eyes of U.S. immigration officials, a risk to public safety.)

We’re already seeing raids in workplaces, homes, and churches; denial of individual benefits that were previously granted; and reports that the National Guard will be deployed to round up undocumented immigrants.

So here’s the thing: rounding up undocumented immigrants is pathetically easy. Any number of U.S. government agencies have information on where they live. In many cases they pay taxes using a substitute number called an “ITIN” (a dead giveaway that they don’t have a real Social Security Number), have been named by their family members on immigration petitions starting the green card process for them (which petitions require an address but don’t give them any short-term rights to be in the U.S.), have obtained special drivers’ licenses in the handful of states that allow these to undocumented persons, and have been granted either DACA status or prosecutorial discretion.

That last one, prosecutorial discretion, is especially important to understand in the current climate. It’s at the knife edge of the difference between President Obama’s immigration policy and that of Trump.

The Obama policy (set forth in a November 2014 memo) addressed the reality that deporting everyone in the U.S. would not only overload the system, but separate families (particularly ones that include U.S. citizen spouses or children). People who were low on the priority list could not only ask that their removal proceedings be suspended, but receive a sort of quasi-status under which they regularly reported to immigration officials and might be granted a work permit.

Now, however, that regular check-in has become the ultimate fish-in-a-barrel way to deport someone. The case of Guadalupe “Lupita” García de Rayos seems to be the first in which someone showed up for the regular meeting and was deported. Other recipients of prosecutorial discretion are already in fear, such as Jeanette Vizguerra, an immigrant mother of four who has reportedly taken refuge in a Denver church.

So what’s next? The Trump executive order hasn’t answered the question of how a system that was truly overloaded already (with years-long backlogs in U.S. immigration court, the next stop for many persons affected by this order) is going to deal with this new influx of arrested or detained persons.

What Does Judge Robarts’ TRO Regarding Trump’s “Muslim Ban” Executive Order Actually Do?

A federal judge’s February 3 ruling in Seattle, Washington, responding to an emergency motion brought by Washington State, issued a Temporary Restraining Order invalidating key parts of President Trump’s executive order entitled “Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Entry into the United States by Foreign Nationals.”

The judge’s order applies nationwide and is still in effect as of February 15, due to followup action by the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. How much of Trump’s order is actually undone by this, and how long the effect will last, is worth a closer look.

First, let’s understand the nature of a TRO. As its name implies, it’s temporary. It just puts a hold on things, maintaining the status quo (pre-executive order), until further court hearings can be held. So it’s not a final decision, and could later be reversed.

Nevertheless, a TRO points in the direction of how a court might treat the subject at hand, due to the list of items that must be proven before the court issues it. These include:

  • That the plaintiff is eventually likely to succeed on the merits (the main substance) of the case.
  • That the plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the TRO is not granted.
  • That the balance of equities tips in favor of the plaintiff, and
  • That the TRO is in the public interest.

These raise the question of who is the “plaintiff” in this case. Technically speaking, it’s the states of Washington and Minnesota. Because a state is essentially a caretaker of its residents, it can take legal action to protect their interests. In this case, the two states alleged that the executive order adversely affected their residents in matters of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel.

But they didn’t stop there. The two states also alleged that they themselves were harmed by the damage Trump’s order inflicted on the operations and missions of their public universities and other institutions of higher learning, as well as the states’ operations, tax basis, and public funds.

The Washington court agreed, and issued the TRO “until such time as the court can hear and decide the states’ request for a preliminary injunction.”

Now, as to which parts of the order were affected. It covered sections 3(c), and 5(a), (b), (c), and (e). That means that:

  • The 90-day ban on people entering the U.S. on immigrant or nonimmigrant visas from certain countries (all Muslim-majority) contained in Section 3(c) is now blocked.
  • The 120-day suspension of the refugee admissions program contained in Section 5(a) is now blocked.
  • The prioritizing of refugee claims based on religious persecution where the religion is a minority in the refugee applicant’s country of nationality contained in Section 5(b) (most likely to favor Christians in the countries where refugees are now coming from) is now blocked.
  • The indefinite ban on Syrian refugees contained in Section 5(c) is now blocked.
  • The order that refugees may still be admitted on a case-by-case basis but only if their entry is in the U.S. interest, in particular where the person is a religious minority in the country of nationality facing religious persecution, the person would enable the U.S. to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreements, or the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship, all contained Section 5(e), is now blocked.

Some sections of Trump’s executive order will remain in force. For example, refugee admissions are still limited to 50,000 total in fiscal year 2017.  (It’s within the president’s power to set such a limit.)

And a section requiring all visa applicants to attend an interview (instead of benefiting from a waiver) remains in force as well.

Nevertheless, the substantive and discriminatory parts of the order have largely been gutted–for now.