1. Changes in Immigration Policy under Trump
By Nora Privitera and Spojmie Nasiri,
Attorneys at Law

2. Terms Used in this Presentation
Introduction
Terms Used in this Presentation

3. Introduction Terms Used in this Presentation
DHS – Department of Homeland Security
ICE – Immigration Control and Enforcement (one of the 3 branches of DHS)
CBP – Customs & Border Patrol (one of the 3 branches of DHS)
INA – Immigration & Nationality Act (the laws governing immigration)
CFR – Code of Federal Regulations

4. Introduction Terms Used in this Presentation
EO – Executive Order
USC – US citizen
LPR – Lawful Permanent Resident (Green Card Holder)
NIV – Nonimmigrant Visa Holder
CAT – Relief from persecution under the Convention Against Torture

5. Immigration Policies affecting Muslims in the U.S. and Abroad
Visa Waiver Program
NSEERS
CARRP

6. Visa Waiver Program
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) oversees the Visa Wavier Program (VWP) in conjunction with the State Department. This program was created in 1989 and allows citizens of thirty-eight countries to travel to the United States for tourism and business for up to ninety days without obtaining a visa.
Most of these countries are in Europe and also include Australia, New Zealand, Chile, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Brunei and Singapore. Per the VWP, these thirty-eight countries must also permit United States citizens to travel to their countries for same amount of time without a visa for tourism and business related purposes.
The VWP uses complex methods to detect and prevent terrorists and criminals from traveling to the United States. This approach utilizes national level assessments concerning the impact of each country’s participation in the VWP on U.S. national security concerns.

7. Visa Waiver Program
In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Paris, lawmakers in Washington passed a bill called the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of Implementation of this program began on January 21, 2016 and under this bill, nationals of VWP who have traveled to or been present in Iran, Iraq, Sudan or Syria after March 1, 2011 were no longer eligible to travel or be admitted to the United States
In addition, this bill denied visa free entry into the United States to foreigners who are dual nationals of Sudan, Iran, Iraq or Syria. Being removed from the VWP does not mean a person is banned from traveling to the U.S. Instead, these individuals will still be able to apply for a visa using the regular process at a U.S. embassy or Consulate.

8. NSEERS - First Muslim Registry
National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS)
The system was implemented, symbolically, on September 11, 2002, under the Department of Justice, but it was soon transferred to the brand-new Department of Homeland Security. It consisted of two “special registration” programs: one that required foreign nationals from certain countries to check in with the government before entering and leaving the country, and another that obliged some foreigners living in the United States to report regularly to immigration officials.

9. NSEERS
When it was announced, the program applied to non-citizen, non-resident visitors from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and Syria. Eventually, the list of countries grew to 25—all of them Muslim-majority countries, except for North Korea.
The domestic registration program applied only to men over the age of 16, but the entry and exit program applied to both men and women. The domestic-registration portion only lasted a year and three months, and the remaining entry-and- exit part of the program was suspended in 2011, when DHS de-listed every country whose nationals were required to register.  Not dismantled and can be brought back by Trump administration.

10. CARRP
The Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program, or CARRP, is a program that the U.S. government began in It was only discovered by ACLU through FOIA request and information about it is still hard to obtain.
CARRP Program Creates Long Delays for Muslim-Americans Applying for Immigration Benefits.
For national security reasons, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in particular U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), began giving strict extra scrutiny to immigrants and non-citizens from Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian communities when they apply for U.S. citizenship, lawful  permanent residency (a green card), and asylum.
The typical result of this added scrutiny is that applicants put on the CARRP list face long USCIS delays in the best case, and in the worst, receive a USCIS denial without prior notice, stated reason, or legal authority. In some cases, USCIS will not take any action at all until the FBI tells it what action it would like taken on the application, which can result in indefinite limbo.

11. The Travel/Muslim Bans

12. The Travel/Muslim Bans
Original Ban dated January 27, 2017
(Executive Order No. 13,769)
1. Banned travel to the US for Non US citizens from 7 Muslim countries (Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen)
2. Banned all Non U.S. citizens (including those with Lawful permanent residence and nonimmigrant visas with ties to the US, such as jobs, homes, property, etc.)
3. Halted refugee admissions for 120 days

13. Original Ban dated January 27, 2017 (Executive Order No. 13,769)
4. Halted Syrian refugee admissions permanently
5. Gave preference to “religious minorities” in the targeted Muslim countries for consideration of refugee status
Implementation was immediate and chaotic, with no warning to the entities in charge of enforcing the order

14. 9th Circuit Court Decision v. Original Ban
(States of Washington & Minnesota v. Trump et al, No. No )
Issues
TRO or Injunction:
Plaintiffs (Washington & Minnesota) argued that the District Court had merely issued a TRO, which is not appealable. Court found it was sufficiently similar to an preliminary injunction to permit an appeal.
Standing:
A plaintiff must demonstrate “that it has suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is either actual or imminent, that the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant, and that it is likely that a favorable decision will redress that injury.
States argued that its public universities were harmed due to the effect on their faculty and students who are nationals of the seven affected countries (examples cited).
Court agreed, citing cases, among them where schools were found to have standing to sue on behalf of their students.

15. 9th Circuit Court Decision v. Original Ban Issues (continued)
Jurisdiction:
Trump argued that the court had no jurisdiction to review the order, stating that: the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections.
Court:
There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy. . .Although our jurisprudence has long counseled deference to the political branches on matters of immigration and national security, . . .the Supreme Court has repeatedly and explicitly rejected the notion that the political branches have unreviewable authority over immigration or are not subject to the Constitution when policymaking in that context. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 695 (2001) (emphasizing that the power of the political branches over immigration “is subject to important constitutional limitations”); .

16. 9th Circuit Court Decision v. Original Ban Issues (continued)
Due Process: Requires Notice and a Hearing before rights can be deprived
Government argued that most or all the individuals affected by the EO have no due process rights
States argued that LPRs and visa holders had a right to notice and an opportunity to respond, and that the order violated the statutory rights of refugees
Court: Govt failed to show LPRs don’t have due process rights, nor had it shown that the EO provided them with a constitutionally sufficient process to challenge the denial of entry. Even without LPRs, NIVs, refugees have due process rights, and people with relationships to US residents and institutions that have due process rights of their own to assert.

17. 9th Circuit Court Decision v. Original Ban
Issues
(continued)
Likelihood of Success—Religious Discrimination:
States: EO violates Equal Protection Because it is intended to discriminate v. Muslims (Cited Trump statements during campaign).
Court: Stating that the States had raised serious issues, the Court reserved consideration of this claim until the parties had had a chance to submit additional arguments.

18. 9th Circuit Court Decision v. Original Ban
Balance of Hardships and the Public Interest Weigh in Favor of the States:
The Government has not shown that a stay is necessary to avoid irreparable injury.
The Government submitted no evidence to rebut the States’ argument that the district court’s order merely returned the nation temporarily to the position it has occupied for many previous years.
The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.

19. 9th Circuit Court Decision v. Original Ban
Balance of Hardships and the Public Interest Weigh in Favor of the States:
Govt said waiver provisions in EO are a sufficient safety valve, but offered no explanation for how these provisions would function in practice: how would the “national interest” be determined, who would make that determination, and when?
The States contend that the travel prohibitions harmed the States’ university employees and students, separated families, and stranded the States’ residents abroad. These are substantial injuries and even irreparable harms.

20. New Travel/Muslim Ban March 6, 2017 Executive Order No. 13,780
Applies to nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, & Yemen who were:
(a) outside the US on 3/16/17,
(b) did not have a valid visa at 5:00 pm 1/2717 EST, &
(c) do not have a valid visa on 3/16/17
Iraq no longer included
Suspends all refugee admissions for 120 days
Limits refugee admissions for FY 2017 to 50,000
No reference to religious minorities

21. The New Executive Order March 6, 2017
Does Not Apply To:
LPRs, those admitted or paroled into the US after the effective date (3/16/17),
Dual nationals traveling on another passport,
Diplomats,
Asylees, refugees, people granted withholding of deportation, advance parole or CAT.

22. The New Executive Order March 6, 2017
Waivers Available to:
Those previously admitted for work, study, or other long-term activity, who are outside the US on the effective date and wish to return to resume their activity.
Those with significant contacts but are outside the US on the effective date due to work, study, or other lawful activity
Those seeking to enter the US for business/professional activity that would be impaired by denial.
Those visiting a US, LPR or NIV close relative
Infants, children adoptees; people needing urgent medical care, & other special cases;
Employees of the US Govt.
Travelers for international organizations

23. Hawaii District Court Decision [CV. NO. 17-00050 DKW-KSC]
Plaintiffs: State of Hawaii & Ismail Elshikh
Allegations: The new order subjects portions of the State’s population, including Dr. Elshikh and his family, to discrimination in violation of both the Constitution and the INA, denying them their right, among other things, to associate with family members overseas on the basis of their religion and national origin and has injured Hawaii’s institutions, economy, and sovereign interest in maintaining the separation between church and state.
Further, by singling out nationals from the six predominantly Muslim countries, the Executive Order causes harm by stigmatizing not only immigrants and refugees, but also Muslim citizens of the United States.

24. Hawaii District Court Decision v. Travel Ban 2
Standing: Plaintiffs have standing (similar to 9th Circuit logic); will be injured by the order, the State through it’s public institutions and reliance on foreign trade, tourism, etc.
Ripeness: Claim is ripe for review (actual injury, not prospective); first amendment claims favored;
Plaintiffs Likely to Succeed on the Merits: Standard for issuing a TRO or injunction.

25. Hawaii District Court Decision v. Travel Ban 2
Why Plaintiffs Likely to Succeed on the Merits
Establishment Clause:
Govt action must have a secular purpose; here context in which this order arose demonstrates an anti-Muslim animus, despite the order’s facial neutrality (quotes extensively from Trump’s public statements, as well as statements by Giuliani & Miller).
Rejected Govt argument that b/c the order only singled out a portion of Muslims worldwide it could not have discriminated.

26. Hawaii District Court Decision v. Travel Ban 2
Why Plaintiffs Likely to Succeed on the Merits
Establishment Clause:
Rejected Govt argument that the order was not discriminatory b/c it applies to all citizens of the affected countries, pointing out that the targeted countries were % Muslim. Quotes Supreme Court: courts may not “turn a blind eye to the context in which [a] policy arose.” McCreary Cty. v. Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545 U.S. 844, 866 (2005)

27. Hawaii District Court Decision v. Travel Ban 2
Plaintiffs have shown likelihood of irreparable harm:
“The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” [citation omitted]

28. Hawaii District Court Decision v. Travel Ban 2
The Balance of Equities and Public Interest Weigh in Favor of Granting Emergency Relief:
The substantial controversy surrounding this Executive Order, illustrates that important public interests are implicated by each party’s positions. National security is unquestionably important to the public at large. Plaintiffs and the public, on the other hand, have a vested interest in the “free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination.”
Plaintiffs have shown a strong likelihood of succeeding on their claim that the Executive Order violates First Amendment rights under the Constitution.
When considered alongside the constitutional injuries and harms discussed above, and the questionable evidence supporting the Government’s national security motivations, the balance of equities and public interests justify granting the Plaintiffs’ TRO.

29. Expanded Enforcement

30. Expanded Enforcement Under January 25, 2017 Executive Orders
Two Separate Orders:
“Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States”
"Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements”

31. Prioritizes for Enforcement anyone who:
Order 1. “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States”
Prioritizes for Enforcement anyone who:
has been convicted of any criminal offense ( under Obama, priority was for those convicted of serious crimes; here, no exceptions for minor offenses, like driving w/o a license);
(2) have been charged with any criminal offense that has not been resolved (eliminates presumption of innocence);
(3) have committed acts which constitute a chargeable criminal offense (could apply to anyone who entered the US illegally);

32. Prioritizes anyone who:
Order 1. “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States”
Prioritizes anyone who:
(4) has engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter before a governmental agency (could apply to anyone who has worked with a false document);
(5) has abused any program related to receipt of public benefits;
(6) is subject to a final order of removal but has not complied with the legal obligation to depart the United States; or
(7) in the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security (gives extraordinary power to low- level immigration officers).

33. Order 1. “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States”
Controversial Secure Communities Program restored (it had been replaced by the Priority Enforcement Program under Obama, after allegations of racial profiling were made).
Expansion of 287(g) program, which allows state law enforcement personnel to be designated as immigration officers.
Eliminates exemption from enforcement priority for any classes of noncitizens except DACA (such as, for example, witnesses or victims of crime).

34. Order 1. “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States”
Establishes Victims of Crime Engagement or VOICE program, establishing a liaison between victims of crimes committed by immigrants and ICE.
Eliminates all resources for advocacy on behalf of illegal noncitizens & directs them to VOICE
Authorizes hiring 10,000 new immigration (ICE) officers

35. Order 1. “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States”
Eliminates Privacy Act rights to people who are not USCs or LPRs
States that it is the policy of the Executive Branch to withhold federal funds from jurisdictions that “fail to comply with applicable federal law, except as mandated by law.” (designed to punish “sanctuary” jurisdictions)
Orders ICE to provide a weekly report to the public of all jurisdictions that release noncitizens from custody notwithstanding ICE detainer requests, including the name, arrest or charge and immigration status of the noncitizen

36. Order 2. “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements”
Expands detention of immigrants apprehended at the border, whether or not they may have a means to obtain lawful status.
Exceptions to this policy only on a case by case basis, & only for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.
Orders the expansion of detention facilities to house these immigrants, particularly on the Mexican border.

37. Order 2. “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements”
4. Orders a “surge” of immigration judges and asylum officers (who determine if someone has a “credible fear” of persecution in the country of origin).
5. Orders the hiring of 5000 more border patrol agents and 500 more Air & Marine Agents/Officers.
6. Directs the heads of all executive departments to identify and quantify all sources of aide/assistance to Mexico each year for 5 years, + orders a report on historic levels of such assistance within 30 days.

38. Order 2. “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements”
7. Directs ICE & CBP to enter into more 287(g) agreements with local law enforcement.
8. Commissions a comprehensive study of border security.
9. Orders CBP and other entities to begin the planning, design, construction and maintenance of a wall on the Southern border (but recognizes that this has to be consistent with the will of Congress.

39. Order 2. “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements”
Expands expedited removal without a hearing to inadmissible noncitizens anywhere in the US who have not shown either that they’ve been physically present in the US for at least 2 years. Before, expedited removal could only apply if the person had been in the US for 14 days and was apprehended within 100 miles of the border.
Orders CBP to return noncitizens applying for admission who are entitled to a hearing and who came across land borders to the country they entered from while their removal hearings are pending.

40. Order 2. “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements”
12. Credible fear interview: Asylum officers shall make a credible fear finding only after finding that the person has a significant possibility of establishing eligibility for asylum, withholding or CAT.
13. Expands capacity of Fraud Detection & National Security Directorate to detect fraud in asylum & adjudications.
14. Orders DHS branches to review their fraud prevention practices & report w/in 90 days.

41. Order 2. “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements”
15. Parole authority to be exercised “sparingly.”
16. Stepped up enforcement of immigration laws to include anyone, including parents of unaccompanied children crossing the border, who directly or indirectly facilitate the smuggling or trafficking of their children.

42. Order 2. “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements”
17. Directs ICE-led Border Enforcement Security task forces, with other law enforcement, to enhance networks against criminal organizations involved in drug trafficking, smuggling, etc.
18. ICE & CBP ordered to develop a standardized method for public reporting of statistical data re: noncitizens apprehended at the border.

43. What rights do immigrants in the US have under the Constitution?
The Constitution is the “law of the land,” therefore it applies within the borders of the U.S. Many cases support the denial of Constitutional rights to noncitizens apprehended at the border (including airports).
Noncitizens within the U.S. are entitled to 5th Amendment Due Process protections, which include the right to a full and fair hearing.

44. What rights do immigrants in the US have under the Constitution?
Noncitizens have no specific right to 4th Amendment protection v. unreasonable searches & seizures. However, if a search is so unreasonable, deprives a person of due process, then the noncitizen can allege a violation of the 5th Amendment.
Noncitizens also have no specific right 6th Amendment right to counsel. However, if ineffective assistance of counsel is so egregious that it effectively deprives a person of due process, then the noncitizen can allege a violation of the 5th Amendment.

45. What rights do immigrants in the US have under the Constitution?
Before Trump, the US employed the legal fiction that undocumented immigrants who had been in the US for 14 days or less and were apprehended within 100 miles of the border, were “at the border” and therefore not entitled to Constitutional protections.
This fiction has now been expanded throughout the US to noncitizens who cannot prove they’ve been in the US for at least 2 years. To declare that the Constitution does not apply to certain people anywhere in the US is unlikely to hold up in court.

46. Can the Expanded Enforcement Orders be Challenged and How?
At this point, many of the directives in these EOs require Congressional authorization, especially funding. Therefore, persuading Congress not to authorize funding may effectively curtail the reach of these orders.
If Congress authorizes funding, litigation will follow.
Know Your Rights presentations essential to inform Immigrants both that they have rights they can assert if they’re picked up by ICE, and where to seek legal assistance.

47. Expanded Detention Under the Orders
Noncitizens (other than LPRs) outside the US can be detained. They are not protected under the Constitution.
However, those who establish a credible fear of persecution are entitled to a removal hearing under INA § 240, and that includes the right to bond out [with some exceptions related to crimes or national security]. See INA § 236(a).They can challenge the EOs for this reason.

48. Expanded Use of Detention, Including
Private Prisons

49. Problems with Private Prisons
There have many allegations of abuses at private prisons housing immigrant detainees. See, for example:
“Complaint Regarding Coercion and Violations of the Right to Counsel at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas,” September 30, 2017, &
Amnesty International Report: “Jailed Without Justice: Immigration Detention in the USA,” dated June

50. “Sanctuary” Jurisdictions

51. “Sanctuary” Jurisdictions
Under INA §287(g)(1), ICE can enter into a written agreement with a state or local jurisdiction to allow local law enforcement officials to enforce the immigration laws, at the state’s expense, and detain an immigrant for up to 48 hours following release from state/local custody.
Under INA §287(g)(9): State/local jurisdictions are not required to enter into an agreement with ICE.

52. “Sanctuary” Jurisdictions
No legal or standard definition of sanctuary jurisdictions.
Examples of “Sanctuary” Policies:
restricting the ability of police to make arrests for federal immigration violations;
prohibiting “287(g)” agreements through which ICE deputizes local law-enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration law;
refusing to enter into a contract with the federal government to hold immigrants in detention;

53. More Examples of “Sanctuary” Policies
restricting the police or other city workers from asking about immigration status or collecting data from individuals they encounter or arrest;
restricting local police responses to federal immigration detainers;
refusing to allow ICE into local jails without a warrant; and
restricting immigration enforcement in sensitive locations like hospitals and schools.

54. “Sanctuary” Jurisdictions
Under 8 CFR §287.7(d): If ICE issues a detainer request for a noncitizen in state or local custody, the local jurisdiction may hold that person for a period not to exceed 48 hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, beyond the completion of state custody, in order to permit assumption of custody by ICE.

55. “Sanctuary Jurisdictions”
Some “sanctuary” jurisdictions limit the types of people they will agree to detain for ICE. For example, some will only honor detainers for people convicted of violent felonies. Most, if not all, “sanctuary” jurisdictions will honor detainers in some cases.
Trump has threatened to withhold federal funding to “sanctuary” jurisdictions. If he were to be successful, this would cripple the budgets of these jurisdictions.

56. “Sanctuary Jurisdictions”
Dennis Herrera, City Attorney of San Francisco, has filed a lawsuit (City and County of San Francisco v. Donald J. Trump, et al.) against the Trump Administration, in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California.
Herrera is seeking a preliminary injunction — a court order that maintains the status quo as a legal case plays out — that would prohibit Trump and his administration from denying federal funding to cities and counties across the country that they deem to be “sanctuary jurisdictions.” The lawsuit also seeks a court ruling stating that San Francisco’s sanctuary laws comply with federal law and preventing the Trump administration from declaring the city ineligible for federal funds.

57. City and County of San Francisco v. Donald J. Trump, et al.
The lawsuit alleges that Trump’s executive order:
ignores the separation of powers in our country,
grants the president authority he is not entitled to under the Constitution, and
tramples on state sovereignty..

58. Senate Bill 54, The California Values Act
Introduced February 1, 2017
Prevents the use of state & local resources for immigration enforcement and ensures that eligible individuals are able to seek services from and engage with state agencies without regard to their immigration status.
Provides that notwithstanding any other law, in no event shall a California law enforcement agency transfer an individual to federal immigration authorities for the purposes of immigration enforcement or detain an individual at the request of federal immigration authorities for the purposes of immigration enforcement absent a judicial warrant.

59. Senate Bill 6, The Due Process for All Act
Requires the State Department of Social Services to either contract with qualified nonprofit legal services organizations, or contract with a nonprofit agency to administer funding to nonprofit legal services organization subcontractors, to provide legal services to individuals in removal proceedings who are not otherwise entitled to legal representation under an existing local, state, or federal program.
Also authorizes the State Department of Social Services to prioritize the award of contracts to provide legal services to detained individuals in removal proceedings and also authorizes the department to prioritize the award of contracts to qualified nonprofit legal services organizations that also receive county or city funding to provide legal services to individuals in removal proceedings.

60. Practical problems with Implementation of Trump’s Policies

61. Practical problems with Implementation of Trump’s policies
Building the wall, building detention centers, and hiring massive numbers of immigration judges and agents will be extremely costly. Estimates for the wall alone are $15-20 billion or more.
Cost of rounding up and deporting massive numbers of immigrants will also be costly.
Training & deploying new personnel and building new detention centers, will take years to accomplish.

62. Practical problems with Implementation of Trump’s policies
Congress holds the purse strings and is the only one of the 3 branches of the Federal government that can make laws. Congress will have to agree with Trump’s policies before they can be implemented.
Public opinion in favor of these policies may diminish as the costs rise, and other necessary services are curtailed to pay for them. For example, to build the wall people with property that spans both sides of the border will either lose their property or access to water from the Rio Grande.

63. What are some of the problems with our Immigration Law System

64. What are some of the problems with our immigration law system
For both family & employment categories, waits are too long. Families kept apart, employers kept waiting. Foreign students, educated here, can’t stay so go elsewhere & compete w/US business.
Nonimmigrant visa categories likewise have long waits. H-1B visas typically run out within days (or sometimes 1 day) of when they become available.
Labor certification (for employment based visas) too slow & cumbersome.

65. What are some of the problems with our immigration law system
Bars to Immigration Too Harsh - Examples:
False claim to USC & unlawful voters – permanent bar, even if you believed you were a USC or entitled to vote, except for some children of USCs.
Misrepresentation/fraud: Permanent bar for parents of USCs.
Unlawful presence bars: 10 year penalty on immigration keeps people otherwise eligible to immigrate here illegally.

66. What are some of the problems with our immigration law system
Bars to Immigration Too Harsh - Examples:
Affidavit of Support Requirement (petitioner/sponsor must show earns at least 125% of Poverty Income Guidelines for size of family) is too rigid: does not permit counting of intending immigrant’s income if without work permit. Permanent bar to immigration

67. What are some of the problems with our immigration law system
Waiver Criteria Too Rigid:
Must show extreme hardship to certain relatives to get many waivers of inadmissibility and/or deportability grounds.
Expedited Removal Unfair: No due process if caught at border; can be expelled w/o hearing.
Immigration Hearings Unfair:
No right to counsel; limited due process rights, even for children, mentally incompetent people, etc.

68. What are some of the problems with our immigration law system
Permanent Residents Disadvantaged:
Must wait years to bring in spouse, minor children [no wait for USCs]
Children who turn 21 while waiting for priority date go to another visa category w/long wait (somewhat alleviated by Child Status Protection Act)
Can’t petition for married offspring; sibings, like USCs can.