Recent reports show Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has begun making workplace visits in businesses that employ F-1 students in optional practical training (OPT) in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. Though ICE was allotted the right to inspect businesses that support OPT in 2016 to make sure they are complying with STEM OPT regulations, the agency only recently began conducting inspections. A company employing STEM OPT workers should be prepared in case ICE visits the office.
How Do People Know if ICE Is Coming?
ICE will usually give 48 hours’ written notice before they come to a place of business, though they may come unannounced if they’re responding to a complaint or have evidence that the company is not complying with STEM OPT regulations.
An inspection may include interviews with personnel, a discussion of the immigrant’s training plan and its implementation, and a review of his or her skills work in relation to the STEM degree. ICE may also view F-1 employee work areas or request a tour of the property.
Why ICE Wants to Check-In
Though there is no evidence to support that foreign students are a risk to the employment opportunities of people born in the U.S., the Trump administration has tried to complicate the OPT experience. In April 2018, USCIS changed its website to prohibit OPT students from working for third-parties.
The May 2016 STEM OPT regulation, which granted ICE the power to check in on F-1 employers, states ICE wants to know if the students are getting paid according to regulation. However, there’s a concern ICE will use these visits to target the students instead of their employers. Companies should be prepared with documentation to aid in these visits.
Specific penalties for employer violations are not described in the regulations, but many claim that violations may create risks for students.
On the Forms I-983, which employers complete to disclose information on their handling of OPT students, the employers accept that DHS may deny, revoke, or terminate the STEM OPT of students whom DHS decides are not complying with the law. This poses a greater risk for the students, who may be taken from their work, than their employers, whose punishments are not clearly defined.
On Friday Oct. 12, three federal courts blocked one of the Trump administration’s most aggressive measures to curb legal immigration. The DHS regulation, which was planned to go into effect in mid-October, would have denied immigrants who receive assistance like SNAP or Medicaid from obtaining a green card. Since Aug. 14, when DHS released the controversial measure, it was feared that on Oct. 15 the final rule on the public charge ground of inadmissibility would go into effect. But, with three days to spare, the measure has been enjoined.
What Was the Controversial Regulation?
The rule did not change the law, but rather outlined a new interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which already allows DHS or JOI to deny visa applications on the grounds that the individual is a public charge. The INA states what determines a public charge is largely decided by the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of the application.
This has meant in the past that immigrants got denied when the government feared the individual would be unable to support themselves without federal assistance. However, Trump’s attempted regulation would have made “public charge” relate to any immigrant who receives one or more designated public benefit for more than 12 months in a 36-month period.
Under Trump’s new reading, DHS would have only considered the individual’s benefits when determining if public benefits should make them ineligible for a visa. The benefits received by members of the individual’s family would not have been considered.
Who Blocked It?
On Friday Oct. 12, representing another defeat for the Trump administration, Judge George Daniels of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan issued a nationwide injunction prohibiting the administration from enforcing their “public charge” rule.
A Washington state federal judge also blocked the regulation nationwide, and a third district court judge in San Francisco said the Trump administration could not enforce the rule within the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Which Benefits Would Have Made Immigrants Public Charges?
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services released a list of benefits that would have deemed someone a public charge. Some of them include:
Federal state, local or tribal cash assistance for income maintenance (often called “General Assistance”)
Which Benefits Would Have Not Made Immigrants Public Charges?
Under this regulation, not all benefits would have deemed someone a public charge. There were some excluded benefits that would not block a visa application. These included:
Medicaid for an emergency medical condition
Medicaid provided under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
School-based services or benefits given to people who are at or below the oldest age-eligible for secondary education as determined under state or local law
Medicaid received when under 21
Medicaid received by a pregnant woman and during the 60-day period beginning on the last day of the pregnancy
Why Was the Public Charge Rule Blocked?
Daniels stated in his ruling, “The Rule is simply a new agency policy of exclusion in search of a justification. It is repugnant to the American dream of the opportunity for prosperity and success through hard work and upwards mobility.”
Like similar Trump immigration regulations in the past, this appeared to the judges to be an excuse to exclude people who otherwise would have lawfully been allowed visas. They saw it as a counter to American values, an opinion which could be supported by Ken Cuccinelli’s, Acting U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director, anecdotal rereading of “The New Colossus” poem inside the Statue to Liberty.
“Give me your tired your poor who can stand on their own two feet and who will not become a public charge,” he told NPR in August.
Will This Regulation Resurface?
While this intended regulation has been blocked, there are other ways the Trump administration has worked to illegalize previously legal forms of immigration. On Oct. 4, the Trump administration issued an 800-page proclamation that will deny immigrants seeking visas if they are unable to afford health insurance.
The “Presidential Proclamation on the Suspension of Entry of Immigrants Who Will Financially Burden the United States Healthcare System” is planned to go into effect on Nov. 7, that is if federal judges don’t block this new regulation as well.
The ruling would allow the government to only accept visa petitions made abroad if the applicant could prove they will be financially secure enough to get health insurance within a month of their arrival the U.S. If they would unable to pay for insurance, the immigrant would have would have to prove they would have the financial resources to pay “reasonably foreseeable medical costs.”
Immigration activists have denounced this regulation.
On Friday Oct. 12, three federal courts blocked one of the Trump administration’s most aggressive measures to curb legal immigration. The DHS regulation, which was planned to go into effect in mid-October, would have denied immigrants who receive assistance like SNAP or Medicaid from obtaining a green card. Since Aug. 14, when DHS released the controversial measure, it was feared that on Oct. 15 the final rule on the public charge ground of inadmissibility would go into effect. But, with three days to spare, the measure has been enjoined.
What Was the Controversial Regulation?
The rule did not change the law, but rather outlined a new interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which already allows DHS or JOI to deny visa applications on the grounds that the individual is a public charge. The INA states what determines a public charge is largely decided by the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of the application.
This has meant in the past that immigrants got denied when the government feared the individual would be unable to support themselves without federal assistance. However, Trump’s attempted regulation would have made “public charge” relate to any immigrant who receives one or more designated public benefit for more than 12 months in a 36-month period.
Under Trump’s new reading, DHS would have only considered the individual’s benefits when determining if public benefits should make them ineligible for a visa. The benefits received by members of the individual’s family would not have been considered.
Who Blocked It?
On Friday Oct. 12, representing another defeat for the Trump administration, Judge George Daniels of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan issued a nationwide injunction prohibiting the administration from enforcing their “public charge” rule.
A Washington state federal judge also blocked the regulation nationwide, and a third district court judge in San Francisco said the Trump administration could not enforce the rule within the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Which Benefits Would Have Made Immigrants Public Charges?
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services released a list of benefits that would have deemed someone a public charge. Some of them include:
Federal state, local or tribal cash assistance for income maintenance (often called “General Assistance”)
Which Benefits Would Have Not Made Immigrants Public Charges?
Under this regulation, not all benefits would have deemed someone a public charge. There were some excluded benefits that would not block a visa application. These included:
Medicaid for an emergency medical condition
Medicaid provided under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
School-based services or benefits given to people who are at or below the oldest age-eligible for secondary education as determined under state or local law
Medicaid received when under 21
Medicaid received by a pregnant woman and during the 60-day period beginning on the last day of the pregnancy
Why Was the Public Charge Rule Blocked?
Daniels stated in his ruling, “The Rule is simply a new agency policy of exclusion in search of a justification. It is repugnant to the American dream of the opportunity for prosperity and success through hard work and upwards mobility.”
Like similar Trump immigration regulations in the past, this appeared to the judges to be an excuse to exclude people who otherwise would have lawfully been allowed visas. They saw it as a counter to American values, an opinion which could be supported by Ken Cuccinelli’s, Acting U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director, anecdotal rereading of “The New Colossus” poem inside the Statue to Liberty.
“Give me your tired your poor who can stand on their own two feet and who will not become a public charge,” he told NPR in August.
Will This Regulation Resurface?
While this intended regulation has been blocked, there are other ways the Trump administration has worked to illegalize previously legal forms of immigration. On Oct. 4, the Trump administration issued an 800-page proclamation that will deny immigrants seeking visas if they are unable to afford health insurance.
The “Presidential Proclamation on the Suspension of Entry of Immigrants Who Will Financially Burden the United States Healthcare System” is planned to go into effect on Nov. 7, that is if federal judges don’t block this new regulation as well.
The ruling would allow the government to only accept visa petitions made abroad if the applicant could prove they will be financially secure enough to get health insurance within a month of their arrival the U.S. If they would unable to pay for insurance, the immigrant would have would have to prove they would have the financial resources to pay “reasonably foreseeable medical costs.”
Immigration activists have denounced this regulation.
With the current polarizing political climate, it’s easy to assume Americans on the right and left agree on nothing. But according to a Pew Research study, members of the public on both sides of the spectrum agree on one of the most divisive topics: immigration.
Where Do Americans Agree?
The study, conducted by the Pew Research Foundation from July 22 to Aug. 4, surveyed 4,175 U.S. adults on a variety of immigration issues. The study found Americans tend to agree, regardless of political party, that the current state of immigration is subpar, and there needs to be a way to improve it without jeopardizing the potential for legal immigration.
Nearly two-thirds of Americans (65%) say the federal government is doing very bad (38%) or somewhat bad (27%) at handling the number of people seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexican border. The study shows that just 33% say the government is doing a good job.
The study also found the public supports stemming the flow of people to the border. According to Pew Research, 74% say it is somewhat important to reduce the number of people coming to the U.S. to seek asylum. Also, 72% of Americans think immigrants should be allowed to stay in the U.S. legally if certain conditions are met. This is consistent with the U.S.’s popular support for legal immigration.
The study found 86% of Americans think it is either very important (52%) or somewhat important (34 %) to increase the number of judges handling asylum cases, which could be read as a public response to the blocked up immigration courts.
Where Do Americans Disagree?
But, of course, Americans don’t agree on everything. The study also found plenty of areas where peoples’ opinions were largely determined by party.
Disagreements were often made over how the government should handle the increase in asylum seekers. Whereas 71% of Democrats say it is very important for asylum seekers to be given safe and sanitary conditions, only 32% of Republicans agree. Most Republicans (77%) think it’s important to make it harder for asylum seekers to be granted legal status, while just a third of Democrats say the same.
Overall, significantly more Republicans than Democrats believe it is very important to reduce the number of people coming to seek asylum, with 65% of Republicans saying it is very important and only 24% of Democrats agreeing.
On Wednesday, Aug. 14, the Department of Homeland Security published the final rule “Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds.” The rule states that as of Oct. 15, DHS may consider an immigrant’s reliance or likelihood to become reliant on public benefits, such as SNAP or Section 8 Housing, to determine if the person should gain legal status. Some people across the U.S. claim this restriction is un-American, so much so that 13 states are suing the federal government for the change.
What Does This Change?
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) gives DHS the right to deny green cards to immigrants deemed to be “public charges.” Previously, “public charges” referred to people who were primarily dependent on government assistance. Under the new rules, DHS can deny adults who make nearly any use of government assistance programs for more than 12 months in the aggregate within a 36-month period. As a result, immigrants with low incomes may be discouraged from seeking government assistance.
Will the New Public Charge Rules Foster Self-Reliance?
The Trump Administration has said this policy is designed to foster “self-reliance. ”
“Through the public charge rule, President Trump’s administration is reinforcing the ideals of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility, ensuring that immigrants are able to support themselves and become successful here in America,” acting Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Ken Cuccinelli Cuccinelli said.
Many people claim the rules are a far cry from the Statue of Liberty’s inscription, “Give me your tired, your poor/ Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
Who Is Suing the Federal Government?
For what they assert is a un-American immigration policy, attorney generals from across the country have named DHS, Acting Secretary of DHS Kevin McAleenan, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services and their director Kenneth T. Cuccinelli in a lawsuit. The 13 plaintiff states are New Jersey, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington. This is the latest attempt to use the courts to block a Trump-era immigration policy.
New Jersey argues in their 176-page complaint that the Trump Administration’s broadening of the “public charge” goes against the language of the INA.
“The Administration’s efforts to make immigration available only to the well-off are as unlawful as they are inhumane,” Attorney General of New Jersey Gurbir Grewal said.
On August 28, 2019, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services released a policy alert that announced children born or adopted to U.S. military members and government employees stationed overseas will soon no longer be granted automatic citizenship. The USCIS’s “Defining ‘Residence’ in Statutory Provisions Related to Citizenship” said this policy will go into effect October 29, 2019. According to the USCIS, the policy change is designed to end what the Trump Administration sees as the agency’s inconsistent use of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). In practice this policy would force U.S. service members to apply their children for citizenship if those children were born or adopted overseas, whereas in the past the INA would have granted them automatic citizenship.
What is the Immigration and Nationality Act?
The Immigration and Nationality Act was passed under President Lyndon Johnson in 1965. It was the first major piece of legislation to update immigration law since the 1920s. The U.S. government has used the law to consider children born or adopted overseas to U.S. service members “residents” of the U.S., allowing them to both live in a foreign country and reside in the U.S. A new reading of the law under the Trump Administration claims that that reasoning is inconsistent with some of the INA’s other provisions, which is at the heart of this change in policy.
Who This Policy Change Will and Won’t Affect
This would be yet another policy change from the Trump Administration that complicates the immigration process, forcing those affected to go through difficult bureaucratic hurdles to ensure their children’s citizenship.
“For them [children born or adopted overseas to U.S. service members] to obtain a Certificate of Citizenship, their U.S. citizen parent must apply for citizenship on their behalf,” USCIS spokesperson Meredith Parker said. This process must be finished before the child reaches the age of 18.
This change in policy will affect families of U.S. service members who birth or adopt children after October 29, 2019, in the countries of which they are stationed. However, children born or adopted before that date will continue to have automatic citizenship, so long as they have already been given a Certificate of Citizenship. It is important to stress this policy does not eliminate the possibility of U.S. citizenship for children born into these circumstances, it only makes it so their parents must apply for it. This creates new bureaucratic hurdles for the families affected.
According to a Department of Defense official, this policy will affect approximately 100 families every year. But for those who experience this issue, it could seem like another way the Trump Administration is leveraging family ties to force immigration change.
Why This Policy Change Was Implemented
According to the USCIS, the change will be enacted because the previous policy of automatic citizenship conflicted with other policies outlined in the Immigration and Nationality Act. These conflicts were:
Language in the INA already says that U.S. service parents living outside the U.S. may apply for citizenship for their child, which suggests the children are not automatically given it
Claiming that children living outside the U.S. could “reside” in the U.S. conflicts with the INA’s definition of “residence,” which is a person’s “principal, actual dwelling place in fact”
The current administration believes it is “significant” that the INA says spouses of U.S. service members living outside the U.S. in the course of their service are considered to be residing in the U.S., without explicitly giving the same consideration to their children
Put together, the USCIS said the previous policy was unclear and made it difficult for their officers to consistently assign Certificates of Citizenship to children. They see this change as a correction that more closely follows the law.
How Parents Affected Can Apply Their Children for Citizenship
Parents affected will now be forced to apply for their children’s citizenship with an N-600K form through the USCIS before the child turns 18. If the child’s parents have died, the form must be filed within five years of their deaths by a grandparent or legal guardian. According to the USCIS’s website, the filing fee for this form is $1,170. The N-600K can be filed to the USCIS online or in the mail. Some materials that must be given with the application include:
The child’s birth certificate or record
The parent’s birth certificate or record
The parent’s marriage certificate
Documents showing the parent’s divorce (if applicable)
Proof of qualifying parent’s U.S. citizenship
If some of these materials are unavailable, parents filing can use “secondary evidence,” such as the child’s school records, baptismal certificate, and census records, along with a written explanation for why the requested evidence could not be collected.
