Immigrants Make Up Over 18% of the Total US Population Growth

 

Immigration—long central to the American experience—has dominated news coverage in recent years. Between 2016 and 2021 alone, record numbers of migrants arrived at the southern border; the Trump administration imposed travel bans on several Middle Eastern countries; immigrants played vital roles as essential workers in the COVID-19 pandemic; and the Biden administration called on Congress to reform decades-old immigration laws, to name just a few issues that have taken central stage.

The American Immigration Council’s Map the Impact, an annual analysis of U.S. immigration data, reveals notable shifts during this five-year period in the demographics of foreign-born residents and how they continue to make significant contributions to the American economy.

Population Shifts

Between 2016 and 2021, the immigrant population in the United States grew by 3.7%, or 1.6 million people. This accounted for 18.3% of the total population gain in the country.

At the same time, some immigrant sub-groups shrank. The number of refugees living in the United States decreased by 6.4%. The number of undocumented immigrants fell by 9.2%, while DACA-eligible residents dropped by 27.3%.

More information https://inmigracionyvisas.com/a5896-Immigrants-help-total-US-population-growth.html

Hispanic americans are helping put the Rio Grande Valley on the map

Located on the U.S.-Mexico border at the southern tip of Texas lies the Rio Grande Valley, or as Texans call it “the Valley” or “RGV.” While the RGV–made up of Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, and Willacy counties–most recently made national news during Texas Governor Abbott’s anti-immigrant blockade , there is so much more to the region.

The RGV is home to the Pharr Bridge, the busiest land crossing for produce in the country, moving more than $60 million worth of goods daily. Elon Musk’s famous SpaceX South Texas launch site, Starbase, is also in the Valley. But it’s more than just a commercial powerhouse; the RGV is also harnessing people power.

Continúe leyendo https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a5463-Hispanic-americans-are-helping-put-the-rio-grande-valley.html

USCIS Proposes Increased Fees For All Immigration-Related Applications

By Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

In a new proposal officially put forward on Thursday, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) called for major fee hikes for immigration-related applications.

The cost for becoming a citizen would rise above $1,000 for the first time in history. In another first, USCIS proposed a new fee for asylum seekers, which would make the United States only the fourth country in the world to charge for humanitarian protection. Advocates decried the fee increases as an attack on legal immigration.

Under the proposed fees, an applicant for a green card through marriage who was applying from inside the United States would have to pay $2,750 in total. This is a $990 increase from the previous costs.

Applicants for citizenship would also pay over 60% more, with the total fees increasing from $725 to $1,170.

USCIS also plans to abolish fee waivers for a wide variety of applications, including for naturalization.

Currently, nearly 40% of applicants for citizenship receive a fee waiver, making this a significant change that could hit seniors and low-income immigrants the hardest. Under the agency’s plan, only fee waivers required by law would be allowed, with all other fee waivers abolished.

Some groups will be particularly impacted, including crime and trafficking victims seeking U visas or T visas. Individuals seeking these visas often need to file Form I-192, which allows them to officially reenter the United States on the new visa. The current fee is $930, for which a fee waiver is available.

Under the new proposal, the fee would increase to $1,415 and no fee waivers would be available. This could mean that victims of trafficking would be unable to afford the visa allowing them to stay in the United States, even though they were otherwise eligible to receive it.

USCIS also proposes to charge people $50 to ask for asylum, which the agency says will discourage “frivolous filings.” Currently, only Iran, Fiji, and Australia charge a fee for asylum seekers. The $50 fee would likely prove prohibitive to people seeking asylum—who are not legally allowed to work in the United States until after applying for asylum.

A $50 fee for applying for asylum would also have devastating effects on asylum seekers in detention, who earn at most $1 a day through Immigration and Custom Enforcement’s so-called “voluntary work program.”

Because fees set by USCIS apply automatically to applicants in immigration court, it would take a new regulation in the immigration court system to exempt detained asylum seekers. USCIS also proposes to hike fees an additional 6% across the board, and then send $200,000,000 yearly to ICE to use however that agency wishes. In essence, they would be forcing immigrants to pay extra in order to detain and deport other immigrants. However, the agency acknowledges that it may need congressional approval in order to do this.

Taken as a whole, these changes would make it more expensive to legally immigrate, imposing significant burdens on low-income immigrants in particular. The agency is soliciting comments on the new fees, with the comment period set to end on December 16, and opposition to the rule is likely to be strong.

Given the significant impact of theses changes, if the agency moves forward with its plan it’s likely to face opposition in court.

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4620-USCIS-Proposes-Increased-Fees.html

Trump New Healthcare Ban Threatens The Legal Immigration System

By: Aaron Reichlin-Melnick www.immigrationimpact.com/

President Trump invoked the same legal authority used for the Travel Ban to impose a sweeping new ban on legal immigration last week. Under the new ban, which analysis suggests could block as much as two thirds of all immigrants from coming to the United States, immigrants will be banned from entering unless they can prove they will be covered by private health insurance within 30 days of entry. The ban is set to go into effect on November 3, 2019.

Immigrants will also be permitted into the United States if they can prove they are wealthy enough to pay for any “reasonably foreseeable medical costs” out of pocket. However, the rule does not provide any guidance on what constitutes a “reasonably foreseeable medical cost” and leaves it up to the Secretary of State to create new rules implementing the Ban.

Depending on how those rules are written, the Healthcare Ban could impose a direct wealth test on immigrants; a stark rejection of the principles of immigration that have guided America for generations.

Like the Travel Ban which was eventually upheld by the Supreme Court, this new ban invokes a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act. That provision allows the president to declare that the entry of “certain” noncitizens is “detrimental to the United States.” As with the Travel Ban, those subject to this ban will be denied visas and barred from entering the United States as permanent residents.

Under the new Healthcare Ban, immigrants must demonstrate that they will be covered by private health insurance. In addition, subsidized health insurance plans purchased through the Affordable Care Act exchange would not be counted. This could create a huge hurdle for immigrants lacking employer-provided health insurance.

The Healthcare Ban could lead to nearly 70% all legal immigrants being denied entry. According to the Migration Policy Institute, 34% of recent legal immigrants are uninsured, and an additional 31% have health insurance plans that wouldn’t qualify under the Healthcare Ban.

The requirement to purchase unsubsidized health insurance will provide a particular hurdle for immigrants.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the majority of individual health insurance plans purchased on the individual market are subsidized plans—which would not count as health insurance for the purpose of the Ban. Out of 13.7 million people who enrolled in the individual market in the first quarter of 2019, two thirds of the total (9.3 million) received subsidies.

The Healthcare Ban does provide some exceptions, including one for minor children of U.S. citizens and immigrants who are already in the United States. There is also a limited exception for parents of U.S. citizens, who still must prove that their healthcare “will not impose a substantial burden on the United States healthcare system.”

The Healthcare Ban comes just days before the Trump administration’s much-attacked new “Public Charge” rule goes into effect on October 15. That rule sought to limit legal immigration by expanding the groups of immigrants excluded as “public charges” because they might use public benefits in the future.

But the Healthcare Ban sweeps far more broadly than public charge, targeting even immigrants who would easily meet that rule’s new standards.

Given the extreme damage that the new ban would do to legal immigration, legal challenges are likely. President Trump has made his dislike for immigrants who use public benefits clear, and his general anti-immigrant attitude is likely to form one basis for the lawsuit. And unlike the Travel Ban, where much of President Trump’s statements occurred before he became president, challengers will be able to draw on a long list of anti-immigrant actions and rhetoric taken throughout his term in office.

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4527-New-Healthcare-Ban-Threatens-The-Immigration-System.html

Which Military Construction Projects Are Losing Funds to Build Trump’s Wall?

By Walter Ewing www.immigrationimpact.com

The Trump administration is raiding the Department of Defense’s budget to fund construction of its border wall. According to Pentagon officials, 127 military construction projects will be canceled in order to free up $3.6 billion to build 175 miles of wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

President Trump previously said this would happen when he declared a “national emergency” along the southern border in February 2019. At the time, he designated a total of about $8 billion in existing federal funds for wall construction—$3.6 billion of which was to be diverted from the military construction budget.

The diverted funds are coming out of the Pentagon’s Fiscal Year 2019 budget and take a disproportionate toll on military construction projects that had been slated for congressional districts represented by Democrats.

The canceled or delayed projects include:

• A childcare center at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. Parents say the center is in desperate need of repair, as it deals with frequent power outages, spotty air conditioning, broken equipment, and damage to the infrastructure after a car hit the building.
• Roads near Fort Meade, Maryland (site of the National Security Agency). These roads have already been in varying stages of construction for a while, to residents’ annoyance.
• A hazardous materials warehouse in Norfolk, Virginia. There is concern that the Navy base warehouse needs to be replaced.
• A cyber-operations facility at Joint Base Langley-Eustis near Newport News, Virginia. The facility will lose $10 million and face possible startup delays.
• A much-needed new middle school for students living at Fort Campbell, a military base along the Kentucky-Tennessee border. The current school suffers from cramped classrooms and outdated equipment.
• Over $400 million worth of construction projects in Puerto Rico. Most of the halted projects were for repairs after Hurricane Maria.

Some lawmakers on the House Armed Services Committee are questioning the administration’s priorities. Why bleed money from 127 projects rather than go through the proper congressional channels to fund the wall?

History has shown that when barriers are erected along the border, people don’t stop crossing. They simply attempt to cross at more remote and dangerous locations. That is why, according to Border Patrol statistics, the southwest border witnesses approximately one death per day.

For this reason, until recently, prominent federal officials publicly doubted the usefulness of a border wall. Outgoing Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Gil Kerlikowske said in January 2017:

“I think that anyone who’s been familiar with the southwest border and the terrain… recognizes that building a wall along the entire southwest border is probably not going to work,” adding that he does not “think it is feasible” or the “smartest way to use taxpayer money on infrastructure.”

Draining the Defense Department to fund President Trump’s crusade for an extravagantly expensive border wall that won’t actually work is a waste of federal funds. It will yield no appreciable benefit for either U.S. border security or the U.S. taxpayer.

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4451-Which-Military-Construction-Projects.html

ICE Manipulate The Appropriations Process To Increase The Incarceration Of Immigrants

By Jorge Loweree www.immigrationimpact.com

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently notified Congress of its intent to pull $271 million dollars from FEMA, the Coast Guard, and TSA for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

DHS will use this money to increase immigration detention capacity and construct tent courthouses along the Texas border. The department is going through with this reallocation of funds despite Congress’ objections and ICE’s dismal record of caring for people already held in its custody.

This reallocation was made under the government funding bill that President Trump signed into law in January 2019, ending the longest government shutdown in U.S. history.

When that bill passed, ICE was holding approximately 49,000 people in detention centers across the country. That was a record at the time. Appropriators in Congress explicitly instructed DHS to decrease detention levels to an average of 40,500 by the end of the fiscal year.

ICE successfully ignored the will of Congress, however, as the agency was reportedly holding an all-time high of 52,398 people in custody as of May. The agency is now projecting an average detainee population of 49,661 by the end of the fiscal year. DHS claims that the additional $271 million is necessary to deal with a rise in single adults crossing the southern border. The department is making this claim despite the fact that their own numbers indicate a significant decline in apprehensions across all demographics over the past five months.

This is not the first time the administration has pulled funds from various parts of the federal government in pursuit of its immigration enforcement priorities. President Trump declared a national emergency earlier this year to reallocate over $6 billion from the Departments of Defense and Treasury to pay for a border wall.

DHS similarly reprogrammed $200 million in 2018. This year, the reprogrammed funds will be pulled from several agencies within DHS, including FEMA, the Coast Guard, and TSA. $116 million will be reprogrammed to pay for ICE enforcement activities, including the addition of 9,000 detention beds across the country.

ICE is therefore continuing to increase its detention capacity at a time when numerous investigations by government and non-governmental organizations have made it clear that the agency is incapable of properly caring for people in its custody.

The administration has repeatedly claimed that detention is necessary to ensure that people appear for their hearings, but the reality is that immigrants and their families appear in court in high numbers. Meaningful alternatives to detention that allow people to navigate our immigration system in less punitive settings, while also ensuring that they appear in court, exist and should be used more broadly.

DHS will also pull $155 million from the FEMA Disaster Relief Fund for the creation of temporary tent courts for people who were subjected to the “Remain in Mexico” policy, officially named the Migrant Protection Protocols. This program requires asylum seekers who arrive at the southern border to await their immigration court hearings in Mexico. Immigration judges from other parts of the country will soon begin to issue decisions in hundreds of asylum cases per day in these courts by video, raising serious due process concerns.

It is also unclear how DHS can legally allocate money for the creation of these facilities given that immigration courts are part of the Department of Justice.

Congress will soon have an opportunity to revisit this issue as it debates DHS funding for FY 2020. Legislators should consider implementing a cap on immigration detention in order to prevent ICE’s manipulation of the appropriations process in the future.

 

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4444-money-to-increase-the-incarceration-of-immigrants.html

USCIS Visa Petition Denials On The Rise

By Tory Johnson

Legal immigration channels to the United States are continuing to suffer under the Trump administration. These restrictions are having an effect on employment-based immigration—particularly petitions for temporary foreign workers.

American businesses file such petitions in order to hire and retain foreign-born workers who make vital contributions to companies, industries, and the U.S. economy. 

Yet U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is denying and scrutinizing some of the most relied-upon petitions at a higher rate than in the past. USCIS data through June 2019 show a clear uptick in denials and requests for evidence (RFEs) for H-1B and L-1 petitions. 

In the first three quarters of the current fiscal year (ending October 1), USCIS denied 16.1% of initial H-1B petitions. That denial rate is nearly four times higher than it was in FY 2015. The denial rate has experienced a steady increase each year since FY 2015. USCIS denied 28% of initial L-1 petitions in the first three quarters of FY 2019. That denial rate is significantlyhigher than what it was in the past four fiscal years. 

USCIS also is issuing more RFEs, essentially asking for additional documents to confirm the validity of the application. While seeking additional evidence may seem minor, in practice RFEs may add months to an already arduous process that can hinder an employer’s ability to plan and meet business needs. 

The RFE rate for H-1B petitions has increased by 78% in the last five years, reaching almost 40% in the first three quarters of FY 2019 compared to 22 and 21% in FYs 2015 and 2016, respectively. And even when petitioners respond with additional information, increasingly USCIS maintains the denial. In FY 2019 (as of June), only 63% of H-1B petitions were approved after an RFE was issued, compared to 83% in FY 2015. 

The RFE rate for L-1 petitions is even higher, nearing 54% in the first three quarters of FY 2019. By comparison, the L-1 RFE rate was just 34% in FY 2015. Again, even after responding to the RFE, many petitions are still denied—the approval has been about 50% since FY 2017. 

USCIS denials for these groups have been increasing under the Trump administration, most noticeably after the president’s Buy American, Hire American executive order. Critics further point to changes USCIS made—without congressional involvement— that affect how the agency evaluates and adjudicates these petitions. USCIS released some information in 2018 regarding reasons for issuing denials and RFEs. The most common reason USCIS issued an RFE in 2018 for H-1B petitions was because the position did not satisfy the “specialty occupation” definition or criteria. 

The administration issued new guidance in 2018 that significantly affected the understanding of “specialty occupations.” The changes were prominent and controversial, in part due to predictions that it would further restrict U.S. businesses’ ability to hire and retain talented workers born outside the country. Many businesses are fighting these denials and pushing back on the policies enabling USCIS to adjudicate petitions with a narrow interpretation of the rules. 

While some petitions are still moving through USCIS, it is clear that rising denial rates has become a persistent trend. For many American businesses, this trend is one that fosters uncertainty and presents additional challenges to achieving their goals and contributing to the modern economy. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4405-USCIS-Visa-Petition-Denials-On-The-Rise.html

USCIS Announces Final Rule Enforcing Long-Standing Public Charge Inadmissibility Law

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a final rule that clearly defines long-standing law to better ensure that aliens seeking to enter and remain in the United States — either temporarily or permanently — are self-sufficient and rely on their own capabilities and the resources of family members, sponsors, and private organizations rather than on public resources.

This final rule amends DHS regulations by prescribing how DHS will determine whether an alien is inadmissible to the United States based on his or her likelihood of becoming a public charge at any time in the future, as set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The final rule addresses U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) authority to permit an alien to submit a public charge bond in the context of adjustment of status applications. The rule also makes nonimmigrant aliens who have received certain public benefits above a specific threshold generally ineligible for extension of stay and change of status.

“For over a century, the public charge ground of inadmissibility has been part of our nation’s immigration laws. President Trump has delivered on his promise to the American people to enforce long-standing immigration law by defining the public charge inadmissibility ground that has been on the books for years,” said USCIS Acting Director Ken Cuccinelli. “Throughout our history, self-sufficiency has been a core tenet of the American dream. Self-reliance, industriousness, and perseverance laid the foundation of our nation and have defined generations of hardworking immigrants seeking opportunity in the United States ever since. Through the enforcement of the public charge inadmissibility law, we will promote these long-standing ideals and immigrant success.”

DHS has revised the definition of “public charge” to incorporate consideration of more kinds of public benefits received, which the Department believes will better ensure that applicants subject to the public charge inadmissibility ground are self-sufficient. The rule defines the term “public charge” to mean an individual who receives one or more designated public benefits for more than 12 months, in the aggregate, within any 36-month period (such that, for instance, receipt of two benefits in one month counts as two months). The rule further defines the term “public benefit” to include any cash benefits for income maintenance, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), most forms of Medicaid, and certain housing programs.

The regulation also excludes from the public benefits definition: public benefits received by individuals who are serving in active duty or in the Ready Reserve component of the U.S. armed forces, and their spouses and children; public benefits received by certain international adoptees and children acquiring U.S. citizenship; Medicaid for aliens under 21 and pregnant women; Medicaid for school-based services (including services provided under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act); and Medicaid benefits for emergency medical services.

This rule also makes certain nonimmigrant aliens in the United States who have received designated public benefits above the designated threshold ineligible for change of status and extension of stay if they received the benefits after obtaining the nonimmigrant status they seek to extend or from which they seek to change.

Importantly, this regulation does not apply to humanitarian-based immigration programs for refugees, asylees, Special Immigrant Juveniles (SIJs), certain trafficking victims (T nonimmigrants), victims of qualifying criminal activity (U nonimmigrants), or victims of domestic violence (VAWA self-petitioners), among others.

This rule also explains how USCIS will exercise its discretionary authority, in limited circumstances, to offer an alien inadmissible only on the public charge ground the opportunity to post a public charge bond. The final rule sets the minimum bond amount at $8,100; the actual bond amount will be dependent on the individual’s circumstances.

This final rule supersedes the 1999 Interim Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds and goes into effect at 12:00 a.m. Eastern on Oct. 15, 60 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register. USCIS will apply the public charge inadmissibility final rule only to applications and petitions postmarked (or, if applicable, submitted electronically) on or after the effective date. Applications and petitions already pending with USCIS on the effective date of the rule (postmarked and accepted by USCIS) will be adjudicated based on the 1999 Interim Guidance. 

USCIS will provide information and additional details to the public as part of public outreach related to the implementation of this rule. In the coming weeks, USCIS will conduct engagement sessions for the public and other interested groups to ensure the public understands which benefits are included in the public charge inadmissibility rule and which are not.

 

Source: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)  

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4387-USCIS-Announces-Final-Rule-Enforcing-Long-Standing-Public-Charge.html

Tuition Equity Policies for Immigrant Students Continue to Advance at the State Level

Written by Tory Johnson

Attending a four-year public college or university is out of reach for many students without U.S. citizenship. But thanks to a growing number of new state laws—which make certain students eligible for in-state tuition rates—many more college hopefuls may be able to pursue higher education.

There is a notable trend among the many immigration-related bills making their way through state legislatures in 2018 and 2019. More states are trying to ensure that students who reside in-state can access higher education.

It’s important to note that these laws and policies, and the rationale behind them, vary among states. In some states, the policies mean in-state tuition rates apply to all students regardless of immigration status. Others apply only to certain groups of students (like those with DACA), while some states like New York offer both in-state tuition and access to certain forms of state or institutional financial aid to eligible undocumented students.

Arkansas is the latest state to pass such a law. Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson signed House Bill 1684 into law earlier this month, making in-state tuition accessible to certain students. It will apply to DACA recipients, children of people with federally issued I-766 work permits, and immigrants from the Marshall Islands. Students who have lived in Arkansas for at least 3 years and hold an Arkansas high school diploma or GED are eligible.

Leaders across the political spectrum recognize these important benefits. Rep. Dan Douglas, a republican state legislator in Arkansas who sponsored the bill, said:

“[The bill is about] giving these kids that grew up here, that are here legally or they’ve attained legal status through the DACA program, the ability to get in-state tuition… this is their home as much as it’s my grandchildren’s home, because this is where they’ve grown up. But our system doesn’t provide a pathway for them to be able to obtain citizenship.”

It’s also good for the state. Research shows Arkansas’ new law could boost the state’s economy. Estimates project an annual increase of $1.2 million in federal, state, and local taxes and over $3.9 million in spending power held by these graduates.

New York passed legislation that goes further. The Jose Peralta New York State Dream Act allows certain undocumented students to apply for state financial assistance programs. Since 2001, undocumented students in New York have been able to access in-state tuition rates but not state financial aid.

Arkansas and New York are in good company. More than 20 states and the District of Columbia have some degree of tuition equity laws or policies. These policies enable certain or all undocumented immigrant students to pay in-state rates. The other states span the country from Utah to Rhode Island and Kentucky to Hawaii.

Several state universities and university systems provide in-state tuition to undocumented students as well. This includes the University of Maine Board of Trustees, University of Michigan Board of Regents, and two Delaware universities.

Despite the differences, many state leaders and experts agree that tuition equity policies are in the best interest of the state and all of its residents. Prior research shows that states benefit when they ensure that all students can access higher education.

For example, tuition equity policies help reduce drop-out rates in high school and encourage students to stay in the state. They expand the local talent pool, increase income and tax contributions, and provide other economic and social benefits.

These recent state-level developments are an important and encouraging step. All policymakers should continue to support and address the needs of their communities and residents, both now and in the future. 

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4139-Tuition-Equity-Policies-for-Immigrant-Students.html

Immigrants’ Taxes Help Save The Social Security System

Written by Walter Ewing

The survival of the nation’s Social Security system depends upon the taxes paid by each new generation of workers. As older workers enter retirement and draw upon Social Security, the continued tax payments of younger workers keep the system solvent and ensure that it will still be there when they, too, reach retirement age. 

In this system, the taxes paid by all workers—immigrant and native-born alike—are critical. As taxpayers, immigrants—including those who are unauthorized—add billions of dollars to the nation’s retirement system each year. 

Unfortunately, Social Security is projected to become insolvent in only a decade and a half if current trends continue. According to Social Security’s board of trustees, the system “will be depleted in 2034.” Social Security’s costs are projected to exceed its income in 2018 “for the first time since 1982.” The system needs more workers who are paying in while older Americans retire and begin collecting Social Security benefits. 

Unauthorized immigrants are therefore extending the life span of the Social Security system. In 2016, the most recent year for which data is available, unauthorized immigrants added $13.3 billion to Social Security . This comes on top of the $3.3 billion they added to Medicare and the $9.4 billion they poured into state and local tax coffers. 

According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), at least half of households headed by unauthorized immigrants file income tax returns using Individual Tax Identification Numbers (ITINs) , which are issued to people without social security numbers. Many unauthorized immigrants who do not file tax returns still have taxes deducted from their paychecks too. 

It’s also important to note that immigrants in general tend to be younger than the average native-born American andmore likely to be in the labor force —meaning they are more likely to be earning taxable income and less likely to be retired. 

The fact is unauthorized immigrants are taxpayers. Given how quickly the U.S. population is aging into retirement, the contributions of unauthorized immigrants to Social Security are especially important. The system would benefit further still if unauthorized immigrants had a way to earn legal status, get better jobs, and earn higher wages. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4120-Immigrants-Taxes-Help-Save-The-Social-Security-System.html

Taking H-4 Spouses Out Of The US Workforce Would Hurt Women The Most

Written by Walter Ewing

The Trump administration is set to issue a proposed rule that would prevent the spouses of certain high-skilled temporary foreign workers from getting jobs while they are in the United States. The rule—which would bar employment for those in H-4 status—would waste economic potential and have a disproportionate impact on women. 

This new rule derives from President Trump’s “Buy American and Hire American” executive order, which incorrectly assumes that fewer jobs for foreigners automatically translates into more jobs for natives. But barring an entire group of skilled workers from the labor force would at most have no impact on employment opportunities for native-born Americans. At worst, it may actually decrease the number of jobs available to natives. 

The foreign nationals with H-4 status who could lose their work authorization are the spouses of high-skilled foreign temporary workers in H-1B status. Roughly 90 percent are women. Since 2015, these H-4s have been allowed to apply for work authorization in the United States if their H-1B spouses meet certain requirements on the path to permanent residence. 

While the Trump administration believes that native-born workers can simply move into the jobs vacated by H-4s, the economics of job creation does not work that way. According to an analysis by the Cato Institute, pulling the spouses of H-1B workers out of the labor force would result in significant economic losses—including the possible loss of jobs among the native-born. 

As Cato notes, the spouses of H-1B workers tend to be highly educated and, when given a chance, economically productive: 

• Nearly 60 percent have a graduate degree.
• About three-quarters (around 91,000 people, primarily women) are employed.
• Two-thirds of employed H-4s work in STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and math), much like their H-1B spouses
• About 7 percent are self-employed; meaning that some also employ other workers.

Given their high earnings, this group adds around $5.5 billion to the U.S. economy. This contribution would stop if the labor force loses them. It would reduce federal tax revenue by $1.9 billion and state and local tax revenue by $530 million. 

The impact on employment is harder to quantify. While pulling all H-4s out of the labor force might open up a few thousand jobs for the native-born, this would be cancelled out by the loss of jobs when self-employed H-4s are forced to close their businesses and let go of their native-born employees. 

On top of that, the presence of foreign workers in the labor force—H-4s included—boosts both job opportunities and earnings for the native-born. 

Foreign and native workers have skill sets which complement each other. Employing foreign workers enhances natives’ productivity and, in turn, their wages. Foreign workers also create jobs by spending their earnings in the U.S. economy and paying U.S. taxes. Eliminating them from the labor force would cause both jobs and earnings to drop, hurting native workers. 

Contrary to the claims of the Trump administration, there is no economic gain from keeping H-4 spouses unemployed. They add to the U.S. economy, create jobs and businesses, generate tax revenue, and raise wages for native-born Americans. There’s no down side to this arrangement in economic terms. 

It’s clear the administration’s proposed rule will do more harm than good. It also amounts to a needlessly punitive action against high-skilled foreign spouses—particularly women—who are already putting their talents to use in the U.S. economy. 

Fuente: https://immigrationimpact.com/

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4072-United-State-forbid-work-to-spouse-h4.html