Many people are ordered deported by an immigration judge but cannot BE deported. This is usually because their country of nationality will not take them.
For decades, these people have been able to get work permits, since they're not going anywhere. Now DHS wants to end that.
The proposal could affect tens of thousands of people who currently have these work permits, many of whom have lived in the United States for decades, working legally and paying taxes.
Every year, USCIS approves 20,000-30,000 of these work permit applications (inc. renewals).
DHS proposes that individuals ordered removed and released on an order of supervision would be denied work permits unless DHS finds that "removal is impracticable because all countries for whom DHS requested travel documents have affirmatively declined to issue such documents."
Notably, the requirement that countries "affirmatively" decline to issue such documents could mean that the exception would not protect people from countries which simply don't respond to DHS requests, or give DHS the runaround.
DHS admits later this exception is very small.
Of course, it wouldn't be a Stephen Miller proposal unless DHS really twisted in the knife.
Under the new proposal, even those "very low" number of people who CAN get a work permit would be banned from renewing their work permit unless they worked for an employer using E-Verify!
They would also limit the period of these work permits to one year only, meaning you'd have to be constantly renewing them (and with current backlogs in work permit authorization, be filing for a renewal around the same time as you got it).
Bizarrely, in order to renew a work permit, you would need to show that you still had "economic necessity" to work, pegged to the federal poverty guideline.
To get the work permit, you need to show you have no money. And to renew it... you still need to show you have no money?
DHS would also require that individuals released from ICE detention (where they can earn at max $1/day) be required to pay a new $30 fee to resubmit biometrics (which are already required, even though ICE already has them), and then DHS will... run another criminal record check?
DHS is also proposing that anyone who currently has one of these work permits would be subject to the new rules when they go to renew their work permit.
Considering that only a few hundred people each year would satisfy the first new requirement, that means most would be denied.
Taken together, this new rule would make it so that only a few hundred people a year, if that, would ever be able to get work permits.
To the thousands of other people, DHS offers a choice: work illegally to support yourself and risk being sent back to detention, or self-deport.
Those interesting in opposing the rule will have just 30 days to leave a comment, starting on Thursday, so all comments will be due by Monday, December 21st (b/c the 30th day falls on a weekend).
They'd have to finalize the rule in 29 days. Unlikely but not impossible.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In 2016, Chad Mizelle, a 29-year-old first-year associate volunteered for the Trump campaign. Four years later:
- He’s DHS Acting General Counsel
- His wife is a federal judge
- One law school friend and groomsman is Deputy General Counsel at DHS. Another has a DOJ job.
Here’s some more background on the groomsman I highlighted. Ian Brekke was named Deputy General Counsel at DHS with three years of experience as a law firm associate. At the time, Mizelle was at the White House where he was a close ally to Stephen Miller.
Here's an article written in February when Mizelle was named the Acting General Counsel (technically the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the General Counsel).
Further update in USCIS's push to inject even more "discretion" into immigration benefit adjudications.
While these benefits have always *technically* required discretion, this administration has moved to codify and expand it in ways that will lead to more denials.
Today's update to the @USCIS Policy Manual adopts the Trump administration's general attitude that legal immigrants are only here on forbearance, with a status that can be taken away any time. Check out the new "Purpose" section.
Old New
The old language is still there, it's just now buried after the brand new section on "rights and responsibilities" of people on green cards, in which point number one notes that the status can be taken away—which is true, of course. But the choice of emphasis here is notable.
Over the next hour I'll be watching a (sadly not public) congressional briefing featuring @RepJasonCrow on the important role of congressional offices in overseeing immigration detention. We're proud @immcouncil to join with other orgs to help facilitate this kind of briefing.
Representative Crow is talking about the ways he came to become the first member of Congress to have his office conduct weekly oversight visits of the Aurura Detention Center. "My job was to do oversight and accountability of federal facilities." cpr.org/2019/07/09/rep…
Rep. Crow says he was met in the lobby of the ICE detention center and refused entry three times, when he tried to conduct oversight. "Needless to say, that was the wrong response."
He then helped work to pass a law requiring ICE to allow Congressional oversight.
The new citizenship test reported on by @priscialva is now officially public. Citizenship applicants will now have to answer 12 of 20 questions right, up from 6 of 10.
This will inevitably lengthen the interview process and lead to fewer interviews a day.
As @priscialva reported, the new test shifts many questions towards broader principles.
For example, "What do we call the first ten amendments to the Constitution?" has been replaced with "What does the Bill of Rights protect?"
Old New
Some questions have been explicitly made harder. For example, "Name one branch or part of the government" has been replaced with "Name the three branches of government."
Notably, Senator-Elect Tuberville got this wrong yesterday
The Border Patrol already makes these numbers public once a year. It's not like these are any secret.
What they want to do is throw around numbers which are historically low, but because people don't have any context, they'll freak out about it. It's propaganda.
Importantly, we might expect an increase in reported "got aways" this year from the Border Patrol not because of more *people,* but because of more *data.*
The Border Patrol Chief wrote earlier this year that improved reporting of incidents will itself lead to an increase.