Monthly Archives: April 2014

Bizarre New Enforcement Practice — Arresting Departing Nationals of Mexico

ICE arrestI nearly drove my car off the road yesterday listening to NPR’s report on “The Curious Practice Of Bringing Immigrants Back — To Deport Them.” This is truly something new in the world of immigration enforcement.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers are not only questioning people coming into the U.S., but addressing questions in Spanish to those driving or riding buses out of the U.S. into Mexico.

Their main goal is apparently to check for evidence of drug trafficking, such as transporting large sums of illegally obtained money. But apparently CBP officials have decided that, while they’re at it, they might as well arrest a few folks who were living in the U.S. without documents — even ones who’d committed no crimes and were minutes away from returning to Mexico anyway!

No one interviewed for the report, regardless of political affiliation, thought this was anything more than a waste of money and time. It’s especially bizarre at a time when — due to the government’s limited resources — the administration has specifically instructed immigration officials to follow a policy of “prosecutorial discretion,” focusing on deporting only those people who present the greatest risk to U.S. society.

And there’s been plenty of political talk of promoting “self-deportation,” too, which it appears some of the departing Mexicans were in the very process of doing.

Hard to say whether this new arrest pattern is misguided, mean-spirited, or simply motivated by some local CBP officers’ wish to get their arrest numbers up and then call it a day.

Do the Signers of the “Deport Justin Bieber” Petition Really Want the White House to Have Such Power?

whitehouseAs widely reported, the petition to the White House to deport pop-singer Justin Bieber, which garnered over 273,00 signatures, recently received an official response. The Administration said, in relevant part, that:

The We the People terms of participation state that, “to avoid the appearance of improper influence, the White House may decline to address certain procurement, law enforcement, adjudicatory, or similar matters properly within the jurisdiction of federal departments or agencies, federal courts, or state and local government in its response to a petition.

According to the Washington Post article on the topic by Helena Andrews, the bottom line here is that “the buck has officially been passed.”

No, the buck has not been passed. The buck was never with the White House in the first place. There is simply nothing in U.S. immigration law that allows the White House (or any other law enforcement authority for that matter), to deport a non-citizen simply because that person “is . . . a terrible influence on our nations [sic.] youth” and the “people” of the U.S. “would like to remove [him] from our society.”

Before the U.S. deports someone, that person has to have done something that matches one of the grounds of deportability set out in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Just a little something called the “rule of law” in our democracy.

And the White House itself wouldn’t be the one to initiate the removal proceedings — that’s the job of the Department of Homeland Security. DHS is, to be sure, an Executive Branch agency — but again, the White House’s basic policy is to not go meddling in the  jurisdiction of such departments merely because a tiny portion of the U.S. population put their names on a petition.

That’s not to say that Bieber’s recent antics and run-ins with the police and U.S. border officials haven’t skated dangerously close to making him deportable. (For more on that, see my earlier blogs,  “Justin Bieber: “Stuck in the Moment” of a Pending Removal Proceeding,” “Oh, and Justin Bieber’s Alleged Assault on a Limo Driver Probably Won’t Get Him Deported, Either,” and “The Justin Bieber Immigration Chronicles, Continued.”)

But if non-Beliebers feel that Justin should be deported for those actions, then putting pressure on Congress to make the immigration laws even harsher than they already are would be the appropriate route. The idea that a petition to the White House could result in someone’s deportation, however, without reference to the legal grounds for it, is just plain scary.

Why Give Birth in the U.S. When a Surrogate Can Do It For You?!

pacifierIt was only a matter of time, really. First, there was “birth tourism,” in which people from around the world who are interested in gaining a foothold in the U.S. arrange to enter as tourists and have a child here — their own little U.S. citizen “anchor baby.”  (See details in my earlier blog, on “Anchor Babies in the News.”)

Now, some parents are avoiding that nerve-wracking plane ride while pregnant, and simply arranging to have surrogate women in the U.S. give birth and cede their parental rights to them. For real. You can read about it in California Lawyer magazine.

This strategy doesn’t work in every U.S. state (because many state legislatures have made surrogacy contracts illegal or unenforceable), but it works in California, which is plenty convenient for the many Asian couples going this route.

I do need to take issue with one statement in the article on “Having a Citizen Baby,” however. It says that, “At $100,000 to $200,000–which includes legal fees, insurance, medical care, and $30,000 to $45,000 for the surrogate–hiring a surrogate is still much cheaper than taking another fast track to legal residency: paying $500,000 or more for an entrepreneur visa.”

The surrogacy route is no “fast track” to legal residency, other than for the baby, who wasn’t exactly worried about immigrating to the U.S. in the first place. Mom and dad still must wait 21 years outside the U.S. before gaining any rights here (also described in my earlier blog post). The entrepreneur or investor visa, by contrast, allows parents and children to enter the U.S. right away.

But the surrogacy route offers certainty for at least one member of the family, and doesn’t carry the risk that the business upon which the investor visa was based will fail within the  first two years–in which case green card eligibility is lost.

Newly Issued Statistics on Who’s in the U.S. With a Temporary Visa

visaThe U.S. government recently released a report called “Estimates of the Size and Characteristics of the Resident Nonimmigrant Population in the United States: January 2012.” It analyzes the numbers of “nonimmigrants” in the U.S. (foreign-born people with a visa as opposed to a green card or undocumented status) in terms of variables such as age, country of origin, and type of visa.

Here are some salient factoids from the report:

  •  A total of about 1.9 million nonimmigrants lived in the U.S. in 2012.
  • Almost half of these (45%) were temporary workers and their families (for example, on H visas).
  • Another 40% were students and their families.
  • Most of them (80%) were between the ages of 18 and 44.
  • About half of them hailed from an Asian country (an impressive 50% of  foreign students came from China, and 38% of workers came from India).
  • Their top destination states were California, New York, Texas, Florida, and Massachusetts.

The bottom line? When you imagine a nonimmigrant, you should probably bring to mind a young Asian worker or foreign student.