Visa Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Southwest Border

by

american-flag-2054414_1280This week President Trump unleashed a fresh barrage of executive orders targeting illegal immigration and antisemitism in the United States.

Executive Order Expanding Migration Operations at Guantánamo Bay

Among these orders, on January 29th the President signed, “Expanding Migration Operations Center at Naval Station Guantánamo Bay,” unveiling his administration’s plans to use a migrant holding facility at the U.S. naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to house more than 30,000 migrants deported from the United States.

The White House has said the naval station will soon be operating at its full capacity to detain “high priority” criminal aliens unlawfully present in the United States, and to “address attendant immigration enforcement needs,” identified by the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.

Immigration advocates have questioned the optics of this decision due to Guantánamo Bay’s sordid history. Once a processing center for asylum seekers and HIV-positive refugees, it has been well known for its detainment of notorious terrorists and unlawful enemy combatants such as the 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. This decision has raised alarm due to Guantanamo’s unfit conditions and frequent human rights violations reported to international human rights organizations.

Despite these criticisms, the White House has said that deported migrants held in Guantánamo will not be detained in the same U.S. military prison where foreign terrorists are being held. Instead, migrants will be placed in a separate holding facility previously used to detain migrants intercepted at sea.

Continue reading

by

usa-1327105_1280The U.S. presidential election is set to be held in just fifteen days and the stakes couldn’t be higher for immigrants at the mercy of our broken immigration system.

In this blog post, we discuss where the presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump stand on key issues relating to immigration.

What would immigration look like under the Harris administration?

Vice President Kamala Harris is expected to continue many of the immigration policies proposed under President Biden. Among them, illegal immigration continues to be a hot button issue.

Illegal Immigration

Harris plans to tackle the border crisis by pushing for bipartisan legislation that would provide additional funding to hire thousands of new border patrol agents to secure our southern border.

In keeping with Biden’s proposals, Kamala also supports closing the border once border crossings have reached an average of more than 5,000 migrants per day over a week period. She has also said she will throw her support behind Biden’s policies barring asylum applications from individuals crossing the border illegally.

Since becoming Vice President, she has become tougher on illegal immigration telling CNN, “We have laws that have to be followed and enforced that address and deal with people who cross our border illegally. And there should be consequences.”

Concerning pathways to permanent residence, she supports “an earned pathway to citizenship” for undocumented immigrants. However, no details have been provided by her campaign regarding necessary criteria to become legalized.

Continue reading

by

smile-5621670_1280-1On Tuesday June 4, 2024, President Joe Biden’s rumored executive action on immigration was unveiled by the White House.

Among its sweeping provisions, effective Wednesday June 5, 2024, the order will limit the number of migrants who can claim asylum at ports of entry along the southern U.S. border, while there are high levels of illegal crossings at the southern border.

Specifically, migrants seeking asylum will be turned away at the border when the seven-day average of daily border crossings exceeds 2,500 daily encounters between ports of entry. Since the number of encounters currently exceeds this figure, the order will go into effect immediately.

This means that starting June 5th U.S. border officials will stop conducting credible fear interviews for asylum claims and will instead quickly expel migrants seeking asylum at the border.

Migrants who are expelled under the order will receive a minimum five-year bar on reentry to the United States and potentially be subject to criminal prosecution.

The government will only accept asylum claims at the border if 14 days have passed, and the number of daily encounters has declined to 1,500 migrants or less at U.S. ports of entry.

Apart from unaccompanied minors, the order applies to all noncitizens, encountered along the southern border, irrespective of their country of origin.

What does the order do?

This executive order will temporarily suspend the entry of noncitizens who cross the border without prior authorization, or a legal basis to do so, including those claiming asylum at the border during periods of high border crossings.

Can migrants still claim asylum through scheduled appointments on the Customs and Border Protection’s One App?

Yes. The executive order does not prohibit migrants from using the CBP One app to make appointments at the border where they are able to claim asylum. The executive order only prohibits “unscheduled” asylum claims at the border.

Continue reading

by

politics-2361943_1280News reports from the Associated Press and other media outlets indicate that the Biden administration is on the verge of signing an executive order that could halt asylum requests at the U.S. Mexico border, and introduce new admissions quotas by invoking the President’s authority under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

As the U.S. presidential election draws closer, the Biden administration has been looking for new ways to appease voters and get tougher on immigration.

President Biden aims to discourage migration by controlling the entrance of undocumented immigrants claiming asylum at the border.

The administration is considering capping the number of daily border crossings to 4,000 over a week, and is weighing whether this limit would include asylum-seekers arriving to the U.S. who have made appointments ahead of time on the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s mobile app. There are currently 1,450 such appointments per day.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, government officials divulged that migrants who arrive after the border reaches a certain threshold may be subject to automatic removal in a process similar to deportation. Those removed would not be able to return to the United States easily.

Republicans have argued that the President has not done enough to stop the flow of illegal immigration to the U.S. which has led the administration to become much more conservative on immigration than ever before.

Continue reading

by

courthouse-1223279_1280The federal government has sued the state of Oklahoma in a new lawsuit seeking to block HB 4156 from taking effect, a new anti-immigration law that regulates the entry of noncitizens by detaining and fining migrants who are unlawfully present in the state.

The U.S. government filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on May 21st arguing that HB 4156 is unconstitutional because the federal government maintains exclusive jurisdiction over the subject of immigration and the status of noncitizens under the supremacy clause and foreign commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Oklahoma’s HB 4156 which was slated to take effect July 1st considers the unlawful presence of a noncitizen in the state to be an “impermissible occupation” and directs law enforcement officials to arrest and jail undocumented immigrants.

The law aims to protect the state’s citizens against undocumented immigrants who could “potentially harm” its residents. Under the law, a first conviction would be a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in county jail and a $500 fine. A second conviction would rise to a felony and carry a sentence of up to two years in county jail and a $1,000 fine.

Those convicted would be required to leave the state of Oklahoma within three days of being released from county jail.

In attempting to enforce this law, the Justice Department argues that the state is circumventing established law and constitutional authority by trying to take matters into its own hands.

Continue reading

by

justice-6570152_1280

The Department of Homeland Security and Justice Department recently announced a new plan to expedite immigration court proceedings for asylum seekers who have recently arrived in the United States without lawful status.

On May 16th senior administration officials from the Department of Homeland Security and Justice Department made it known to the public that a new Recent Arrivals (RA) docket process will allow undocumented immigrants to resolve their immigration cases more expeditiously – within a period of 180 days.

Under the RA Docket process, DHS will place certain noncitizen single adults on the RA Docket, and EOIR adjudicators will prioritize the adjudication of these cases.

The RA Docket will operate in five cities: Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City. Immigration judges will aim to render final decisions within 180 days, although the time to make a decision in any particular case will remain subject to case-specific circumstances and procedural protections, including allowing time for noncitizens to seek representation where needed.

Continue reading

by

election-4745282_1280

As the 2024 U.S. presidential elections draw nearer, Biden and Mexico’s President Andres Manual Lopez Obrador, have announced joint efforts to combat illegal border crossings.

The two leaders have said that their administrations will take steps to decrease illegal border crossings by ordering their national security teams to cooperate. While specific details were not disclosed, a government official has said that immigration enforcement actions may include a crackdown to prevent railways, buses, and airports from being used for illegal border crossings.

The issue of immigration will likely sway voting age Americans who believe President Biden has not done enough to prevent illegal immigration.

Under intense scrutiny and political pressure, the Biden administration has attempted to appease these voters by getting tougher on immigration. Recently, the Biden administration attempted to include restrictive immigration policies as part of a $95 billion foreign aid package for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. Biden called the immigration reform measure the “strongest border security bill this country has ever seen.” If passed, the measure would have given him the authority to turn away migrants at the U.S. Mexico border.

Against political gridlock however, Congress blocked the inclusion of the measure from the bill. This has left the Biden administration to consider the possibility of executive action and internal policy decisions to ramp up its enforcement efforts.

Continue reading

by

usa-3808026_1280

In this blog post, we share with you the latest regarding the controversial immigration law from the state of Texas known as SB-4.

In a stunning turn of events, on Tuesday March 19th the Supreme Court of the United States cleared the way for the state of Texas to enforce its controversial immigration law SB4, which would allow state officials to arrest and detain those suspected of entering the country illegally.

The Supreme Court rejected the Biden administration’s request to intervene and keep Texas’s strict immigration enforcement law on hold pending litigation.

The legal challenges however did not stop there. Later that day, a federal appeals court put the controversial law back on hold, just hours after the Supreme Court would have allowed Texas to begin enforcing the new law.

The order came down from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in which a three-judge panel voted 2-1 to vacate a previous ruling that had put the law into effect.

The future of the law still hangs in the balance as the 5th Circuit prepares to hear arguments over the controversial law to decide once and for all whether the law is unconstitutional.

Continue reading

by

family-7293705_1280

Without any prior notice, the U.S. government has started requiring immigrants without passports, to submit to facial recognition technology in order to board domestic flights in the United States.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) recently confirmed this policy change, stating that migrants who do not have the proper photo identification, must submit to facial recognition technology, to verify their identify using Department of Homeland Security (DHS) records. Those who refuse to undergo facial recognition are turned away at the airport.

This change came to light after several migrants flying out of Texas were unexpectedly required to submit to the technology.

A spokesperson for the agency further confirmed that if TSA cannot match the person’s identity to DHS records, they will be denied boarding and entry to secure areas of an airport.

This has been alarming news for immigrants who must relocate to areas where they are pursuing their immigration claims, or where they have been scheduled to appear before immigration court.

It has also caused concern for immigrants who were blindsided by the change and spent their hard-earned money on nonrefundable domestic flights.

Continue reading

by

The Supus-supreme-court-building-2225766_1280reme Court of the United States has issued an important but temporary victory to the Biden administration. On Monday, the court temporarily halted the enforcement of a controversial immigration law from the state of Texas known as SB4, which would authorize state law enforcement officials to arrest and detain those suspected of entering the country illegally, while imposing harsh criminal penalties.

The administrative hold issued by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito blocks the law from taking effect in the state of Texas until March 13. This temporary pause will give the court enough time to review and respond to court proceedings initiated by the Biden administration. Alito has ordered Texas to respond to the government’s lawsuit by March 11.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar has argued that SB4 violates the law by placing the authority to admit and remove noncitizens on state law enforcement when these matters fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government, and not individual states.

Continue reading