Donald Trump in the Rose Garden of the White House, after unveiling a legal proposal for immigration, on … [+]
A lawsuit has been filed that could decide the fate of hundreds of thousands of immigrants and temporary visa holders. These are individuals blocked by two sweeping presidential proclamations issued earlier this year. Plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the Trump administration’s proclamations.
On April 22, 2020, Donald Trump issued a presidential proclamation to “block” the entry of almost all immigrants to the United States. If the entry into force in the presidential proclamation continues, which could take another four years if Trump is re-elected, then virtually no immigrants on employment or family (except the spouses and children of U.S. citizens) or immigrants from Visa America can enter. The statement said the action was necessary because of the high US unemployment rate. However, no serious economic arguments or data were presented to support the contribution that allowing fewer immigrants would lower the unemployment rate.
On April 28, 2020, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), Justice Action Center and Innovation Law Lab challenged the April proclamation. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a (putative) class of family-based visa sponsors for relative children who were about to “go out of age” and lose the opportunity to obtain a visa as a result of the proclamation, according to Jesse Segen of AILA.
On June 22, 2020, the Trump administration issued another presidential proclamation. The new proclamation stopped the entry of foreign nationals on H-1B, L-1, H-2B and (mostly) temporary visas for J-1 until at least 31 December 2020. Again, the proclamation claimed that the prevention of entry of foreign nationals would improve the unemployment rate of the US.
On July 17, 2020, AILA, Justice Action Center, and Innovation Law Lab filed an amended complaint on behalf of families, employers, and organizations to challenge June 22.nd proclamation. The complaint included family-based immigrant visa sponsors, visa applicants for diversity, J-1 sponsorship organizations and employers sponsoring H-1B and L-1 staff.
On July 31, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to incorporate the presidential proclamations. “This includes the enforcement and implementation of the proclamations by the Department of State, which has interpreted the suspension of entry as preventing the issuance of visas,” Jesse Bless said in an interview. (The case is Domingo Arreguin Gomez, et al., Plaintiff, Donald J. Trump, et al., Defendants.)
“The court will hold a hearing on the plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order on August 27, 2020, at 1 p.m.,” according to the schedule order of District Judge Amit P. Mehta, in the United States. District Court for the District of Columbia.
“The Statute invoked as authority for the proclamations, 8 USC § 1182 (f), requires that the President ‘fine ‘ that the entry into the country by certain foreign nationals would be ‘detrimental to the interests of the United States,’ ‘the plaintiffs put in motion for a preliminary injunction. “As the Nine Circuit concluded in refusing to stay a preliminary injunction and upholding a distinct statement in Doe v. Trump . . . this one findings requirement is not met by mere assertion or conjecture not supported by evidence or rational analysis: the Executive Branch must investigate the problems for it, and fine in good faith that the entry of specific classes of individuals would be detrimental to the national interest. That’s how the president kept the proclamation in question Trump v. Hawaii . . . conducting a global review for multi-genagens and issuing detailed reasons to find that citizens of particular peoples barrier should be entered into.
“But the proclamations in question this one cases do not indicate such analysis and do not yet contain detailed findings or support for such findings. They are heading for the economic downturn, but do not provide support for their central premise that allowed foreign nationals to take over the jobs of Americans. The president could not have found such support either, as the overwhelming weight of the evidence contradicts his statement. Immigration cares lanes and grows the economy, improving job prospects and working conditions for American workers. . . . The proclamations do not stand in the way of the slightest control, and are invalid under the ordinary language of the whole statute which intends to authorize them. “
The motion for a lecture includes statements from economists who say that research shows that there is no economic basis for the proclamations. It also cites a National Bureau of Labor Statistics data policy analysis that found the unemployment rate in computer professions, in which most H-1B visa holders work, had remained stable since January 2020, based on information available at the time of the proclamation of 22 June 2020.
The complainants include Carmen Ligia Pimentel, who sponsors her husband to immigrate from the Dominican Republic: ‘Mevr. Pimentel is pregnant with the first child of the family, who is born around the time of this preservation. The proclamations deprive Ms. Pimentel of the company and her husband’s support in caring for her children. ”
Twenty states and the District of Columbia have filed an amicus letter in the case citing economic research, claiming the proclamations are harming their residents. “By providing child care and other forms of care work, immigrants are supporting American residents in their work,” according to the brief.
“The sweeping ban of the proclamations will also disrupt several sectors that are critical to dealing with the Covid-19 crisis, including medical care, science and technology,” the amicus letter continued. “[T]he proclamations will indeed increase the destructive economic effects of the pandemic. In addition to Amici’s dismissal of the many economic contributions of immigrants and other foreign workers, the proclamations will harm the residents of Amici by forcing the prolonged separation of families. . . hundreds of thousands of parents, grandparents, children and siblings of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents will not be able to obtain a visa to reunite with their loved ones in this country. “
Charles H. Kuck of Kuck Baxter Immigration LLC, and Gregory H. Siskind and Johnna J. Main Bailey of Siskind Susser, PC, issued an amicus letter commissioned by the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) alleging violations of the U.S. treaty addresses obligations due to the presidential proclamation excluding L-1 visa holders. The letter, which cites an earlier NFAP legal analysis, notes that under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), the United States is allowing L-1 visa holders, who are intercompany transfers (managers, performers and employees with special knowledge).
“The June proclamation is affecting tens of thousands of workers from countries around the world and it is very possible that a large number of countries will seek redemption for the American violation of the treaty,” according to the brief.
“Should the dispute result in affected countries seeking revenge against the US through the WTO [World Trade Organization’s] The dispute resolution process, the consequences for Americans working abroad and American companies working around the world can be dire, “the brief claims.” The Trump administration cites the help of American workers as the only basis for the June proclamation.However, the declaration clearly runs counter to our obligations under the GATS and it is far too predictable that we will eventually find that American workers are terminated and deported abroad and American companies forced to close their operations or join them at great risk without the oversight of US executives and managers. ”
To argue against the Trump administration’s economic reasoning for the proclamations, the plaintiff cites an unusual source that supports the view that immigrants and temporary visa holders are helping the U.S. economy. The source? The Trump administration.
In the final version of its recent reimbursement rule, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) wrote: “DHS knows that immigrants make significant contributions to the U.S. economy… DHS agrees that immigrants are a major source of employment in the United States. United States and contribution to the economy … DHS agrees that immigrants are crucial to agriculture, construction, health care, hospitality, almost any industry, immigrants are a source of future growth in American labor, many immigrants are successful entrepreneurs, and that welcoming new citizens helps the US economy … DHS knows that immigrants make important contributions to research and science. ”
It seems that the Trump administration may not even support the economic reasoning behind the presidential proclamations.
.
