President Trump Redefines ‘White House’

By Amy Goodman and Denis Moynihan www.immigrationimpact.com

President Donald Trump has given new meaning to the “White House.” From his perch at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, he hurls racist epithets via tweet while commanding armed agents to terrorize immigrants at the border and in communities from coast to coast.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi summed it up well, commenting last week about Trump’s attempts to insert a citizenship question into the U.S. Census even after he was rebuffed by the Supreme Court. She accused Trump of trying to “Make America White Again.”

It is well known that Trump is a voracious consumer of Fox News. On Sunday morning, just 20 minutes after “Fox & Friends” ran a piece attacking Congressmembers Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib, Trump tweeted:

“So interesting to see ‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe … loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States … how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”

Go back to where you came from? Three of the women he attacked were born in the United States: Ocasio-Cortez, born in the Bronx, is the youngest woman ever to serve in Congress; Pressley, born in Cincinnati, is the first African-American congresswoman to represent Massachusetts. Tlaib, born in Detroit, is Palestinian-American. She and Ilhan Omar are the first Muslim women ever elected to Congress.

Omar is also the first congresswoman to wear a hijab. Born in Somalia, she came to the U.S. as a political refugee when she was a child. As one viral video pointed out, Omar has been a U.S. citizen longer than Trump’s third wife, first lady Melania Trump, a native of Slovenia.

Trump’s racist tweets united a fractured Democratic Party, quickly mobilizing support for the four freshmen congresswomen, now referred to collectively as “The Squad.”

By Tuesday, a resolution, House Res. 489, “Condemning President Trump’s racist comments directed at Members of Congress,” was being debated on the House floor. Republicans temporarily derailed the debate by invoking an obscure line contained in the congressional rules that states, “References to racial or other discrimination on the part of the President are not in order.” The original rule book banning use of the word “racist” was written by Thomas Jefferson, himself a slave owner, but any irony in that was apparently lost on the Republicans. The resolution ultimately passed, with four Republicans voting with the Democratic majority. While it was the first formal House rebuke of a sitting president in over 100 years, a more serious motion to censure Trump was blocked by Pelosi.

Trump doubled down on his verbal assaults on the four congresswomen, accusing them of being socialists or communists. Trump’s use of McCarthy-era attacks should surprise no one, as his early mentor was Roy Cohn, who served as Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s lead attorney when destroying thousands of lives through red-baiting during the 1950s.

Trump went to North Carolina on Wednesday to hold a campaign rally. Once again, he went after his favorite targets: women and people of color, telegraphing what will likely be a strategy of using racist rhetoric to inflame his white base. In the midst of his long tirade directed against Ilhan Omar, the crowd began chanting, “Send her back! Send her back!”

In his book “The Black History of the White House,” American University professor Clarence Lusane chronicles the history of the presidential mansion, from the slaves forced to build it to the first African American presidential family, the Obamas.

Lusane writes: “For many African Americans, the ‘white’ of the White House has meant more than just the building’s color; it has symbolized the hue and source of dehumanizing cruelty, domination and exclusion that has defined the long narrative of whites’ relations to people of color in the United States.”

On Monday, the four congresswomen who so clearly threaten Trump held a news conference, denouncing his racism toward them and people of color overall, pointing to his policies on migrant detention, family separation and the threatened ICE raids. Refusing to mention Trump by name, Ayanna Pressley made clear whose country this is:

“Despite the occupant of the White House’s attempts to marginalize us and to silence us, know that we are more than four people. We ran on a mandate to advocate for and to represent those ignored, left out and left behind. Our squad is big. Our squad includes any person committed to building a more equitable and just world. That is the work that we want to get back to. Given the size of this squad and this great nation, we cannot, we will not, be silenced.”

 

Source: https://www.democracynow.org

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4326-President-Trump-Redefines-White-House.html 

Temporary Protected Status: An Overview

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is a temporary immigration status provided to nationals of certain countries experiencing problems that make it difficult or unsafe for their nationals to be deported there. TPS has been a lifeline to hundreds of thousands of individuals already in the United States when problems in a home country make their departure or deportation untenable. This fact sheet provides an overview of how TPS designations are determined, what benefits TPS confers, and how TPS beneficiaries apply for and regularly renew their status. 


What is Temporary Protected Status? 

Congress created Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in the Immigration Act of 1990. It is a temporary immigration status provided to nationals of specifically designated countries that are confronting an ongoing armed conflict, environmental disaster, or extraordinary and temporary conditions. It provides a work permit and stay of deportation to foreign nationals from those countries who are in the United States at the time the U.S. government makes the designation. 


For what reasons can a country be designated for TPS? 

A country may be designated for TPS for one or more of the following reasons: 

• An ongoing armed conflict, such as a civil war, that poses a serious threat to the personal safety of returning nationals;
• An environmental disaster, such as an earthquake, hurricane, or epidemic, that results in a substantial but temporary disruption of living conditions, and because of which the foreign state is temporarily unable to adequately handle the return of its nationals;
• Extraordinary and temporary conditions in the foreign state that prevent its nationals from returning to the state in safety (unless the U.S. government finds that permitting these nationals to remain temporarily in the United States is contrary to the U.S. national interest).

Who has the authority to designate a country for TPS? 

The Secretary of Homeland Security has discretion to decide when a country merits a TPS designation. The Secretary must consult with other government agencies prior to deciding to designate a country—or part of a country—for TPS. Although these other agencies are not specified in the statute, these consultations usually involve the Department of State, the National Security Council, and occasionally the Department of Justice (DOJ). The Secretary’s decision as to whether or not to designate a country for TPS is not subject to judicial review, according to immigration law. 


How long are TPS designations? 

A TPS designation can be made for 6, 12, or 18 months at a time. At least 60 days prior to the expiration of TPS, the Secretary must decide whether to extend or terminate a designation based on the conditions in the foreign country. Decisions to begin, extend, or terminate a TPS designation must be published in the Federal Register. If an extension or termination decision is not published at least 60 days in advance of expiration, the designation is automatically extended for six months. The law does not define the term “temporary” or otherwise limit the amount of time for which a country can have a TPS designation. 


Who is eligible for TPS? 

In order to qualify for TPS, an individual must: 

• be a national of the foreign country with a TPS designation (or if stateless, have last habitually resided in a country with a TPS designation);
• be continuously physically present in the United States since the effective date of designation;
• have continuously resided in the United States since a date specified by the Secretary of Homeland Security;
• not be inadmissible to the United States or be barred from asylum for certain criminal or national security-related reasons, such as individuals who have been convicted of any felony or two or more misdemeanors.

Nationals of a designated country do not automatically receive TPS, but instead must register during a specific registration period and pay significant fees. In addition, an individual’s immigration status at the time of application for TPS has no effect on one’s eligibility, nor does the previous issuance of an order of removal. 


What does TPS authorize a noncitizen to do? 

An individual who is eligible for TPS must register by submitting an application to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), an agency of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). If a person demonstrates eligibility and USCIS grants TPS, that person receives a temporary stay of deportation and temporary authorization to work in the United States. TPS beneficiaries are also eligible for advance parole, which provides permission to travel abroad and return to the United States, but they must apply for it separately. Beneficiaries are not eligible for any public assistance by virtue of their TPS status. 


Which countries have TPS? 

As of May 2019, the following 10 countries were designated for TPS and the designation had not expired: 

• *El Salvador (Extended until January 2, 2020)
• *Haiti (Extended until January 2, 2020)
• *Honduras (Termination was scheduled to be effective January 5, 2020, but is on hold)
• *Nepal (Termination was scheduled to be effective June 24, 2019, but is on hold; employment authorization is auto-extended through March 24, 2020)
• *Nicaragua (Extended until January 2, 2020)
• Somalia (Extended until March 17, 2020)
• South Sudan (Extended until November 2, 2020)
• *Sudan (Extended until January 2, 2020)
• Syria (Extended until September 30, 2019)
• Yemen (Extended until March 3, 2020)

*As of May 2019, these TPS designations had been terminated by DHS but will not go into effect until further notice, contingent upon rulings in at least two lawsuits, including: Bhattarai v. Nielsen (Honduras and Nepal) and Ramos v. Nielsen (El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Sudan). 


Which countries have had TPS in the past? 

Since TPS was created, the following countries or parts of countries have had TPS designations that are now terminated: 

• Angola (Expired March 29, 2003)
• Bosnia-Herzegovina (Expired February 10, 2001)
• Burundi (Expired May 2, 2009)
• Guinea (Expired May 21, 2017)
• Guinea-Bissau (Expired September 10, 2000)
• Province of Kosovo (Expired December 8, 2000)
• Kuwait (Expired March 27, 1992)
• Lebanon (Expired April 9, 1993)
• Liberia (Expired May 21, 2017)
• Montserrat (Expired August 27, 2004)
• Rwanda (Expired December 6, 1997)
• Sierra Leone (Expired May 21, 2017)

Does TPS create a path to permanent residence or citizenship? 

TPS does not provide beneficiaries with a separate path to lawful permanent residence (a green card) or citizenship. However, a TPS recipient who otherwise is eligible for permanent residence may apply for that status. 

Generally, a person who entered the United States without inspection is not eligible to apply for permanent residence. As of May 2019, three federal appellate circuits had ruled on this issue: 

• Two federal appellate circuits (the Ninth and Sixth Circuits) ruled that a person with valid TPS status could adjust status to lawful permanent residence if otherwise eligible through a family-based or employment-based petition, even if he or she entered the United States without inspection.
• The Eleventh Circuit ruled that a TPS recipient who entered without inspection is not eligible to adjust to permanent residence.

DHS’ position, applicable in all other circuits, is that a TPS holder is not eligible to adjust status within the United States. In order to gain permanent resident status, a TPS recipient must instead depart the country to have a visa processed at a consular post. For many TPS holders who originally entered the United States without inspection, a departure to have a visa interview would trigger bars to re-entry for up to 10 years. 

Alternatively, some TPS recipients may be eligible to adjust status if they were granted advance permission from USCIS (referred to as advance parole), traveled abroad and were paroled back into the United States. 


What happens to a TPS beneficiary when a TPS designation ends? 

TPS beneficiaries return to the immigration status that the person held prior to receiving TPS, unless that status has expired or the person has successfully acquired a new immigration status. TPS beneficiaries who entered the United States without inspection and who are not eligible for other immigration benefits, for example, would return to being undocumented at the end of a TPS designation and become subject to removal. 


How are “Deferred Enforced Departure” and “Extended Voluntary Departure” related to TPS? 

Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) is very similar to TPS but derives from the President’s foreign policy authority rather than from a specific law. As of May 2019, the only country designated for DED was Liberia, effective until March 30, 2020. 

• There are no explicit criteria for making DED decisions or for determining who would be eligible for DED once a designation is determined.
• Just like TPS holders, DED beneficiaries receive a work permit and stay of deportation; however, they are not permitted to travel abroad.

Extended Voluntary Departure (EVD) was the predecessor to TPS prior to the Immigration Act of 1990. It was a discretionary authority used by the Attorney General (at a time when the Immigration and Naturalization Service was housed in DOJ) to give nationals of certain countries experiencing turbulent country conditions temporary permission to remain in the United States. Congress eliminated EVD with the creation of TPS. 

 

Source: www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org  

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4228-Temporary-Protected-Status-An-Overview.html

Premium Processing Begins For Remaining H-1B Cap-Subject Petitions

On June 10, we will begin premium processing for all remaining FY 2020 H-1B cap-subject petitions. Starting on that date, petitioners may file Form I-907, Request for Premium Processing Service, with the USCIS service center that is processing their petition.

On March 19, we announced that we would offer premium processing in a two-phased approach during the FY 2020 cap season to best manage premium processing requests without fully suspending it. In the past few years, we suspended all premium processing for H-1B petitions due to high demand. Based on feedback from the public, we are using this phased approach to benefit petitioners and ensure efficient premium processing. The first phase, which started on May 20, included FY 2020 cap-subject H-1B petitions requesting a change of status and the second phase includes all other FY 2020 cap-subject petitions.

At this time, premium processing for H-1B petitions that are exempt from the cap, such as extension of stay requests, remains available.


Pre-paid Mailer Temporary Suspension 

Starting on June 10 and continuing through the end of June 24, we will not use pre-paid mailers to send out final notices for premium processing for FY 2020 cap-subject H-1B petitions not requesting a change of status. Instead, we will use regular mail. We will be doing this due to resource limitations as we work to process all premium processing petitions in a timely manner.

The process for printing approval notices and sending them by regular mail is fully automated, whereas using pre-paid mailers requires a separate and more time-consuming manual process. As such, and given the initial surge of premium processing requests for H-1B cap petitions and its impact on USCIS resources, using pre-paid mailers may actually delay the issuance of an approval notice compared to the standard process, or otherwise negatively affect our ability to timely process premium processing petitions. After the two-week period, we intend to resume sending out final notices in pre-paid mailers provided by petitioners, when operationally feasible.

Fuente: El Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de Estados Unidos (USCIS) 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4224-Premium-Processing-Begins-For-Remaining-H-1B.html

Serving Our Country Is No Longer A Way For Immigrant Soldiers To Gain Citizenship

Written by Guillermo Cantor

Immigrant soldiers in the U.S. military often use their service as a catalyst to apply for and gain citizenship. Traditionally, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) honored that service with a fast-tracked pathway to naturalization—granting soldiers citizenship to a country they already risked their lives for seemed beyond fair.

But that has recently changed. New USCIS data shows that the numbers of immigrant soldiers applying for and earning citizenship have plummeted. In total, military naturalizations have dropped 65 percent since the Trump administration created stricter policies for immigrant service members. 

In October 2017, the President Trump directed Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to make policy changes that added additional barriers for non-citizen service members. The new policies reversed the military’s long-standing practice of expediting immigrant soldiers’ citizenship applications, saying it was no longer an option. The policy changes added more background checks and significantly extended the time someone must serve before they can receive the needed paperwork to pursue citizenship. 

Additionally, the Pentagon implemented another policy that temporarily halted all enlistments involving green card holders hoping to join the Army Reserve and National Guard. 

The ramifications hit immediately—both the number of people approved for citizenship and the number of those even applying dropped. 

The first publicly available data on military naturalizations since the implementation shows the number of immigrant applicants dropped from 3,132 directly prior to the policy change to 1,069 in the beginning of fiscal year 2018. 

Out of those that did apply, fewer immigrant service members gained U.S. citizenship than before. 2,123 service members became naturalized in the last quarter of fiscal year 2017. That number fell to only 755 by December 2018. 

In fact, the rate of citizenship denial for immigrant soldiers is now higher than those of foreign-born civilians. USCIS denied near 17 percent of all immigrant service members’ applications for citizenship, compared to just 11 percent for foreign-born civilians. 

This shift hasn’t settled well with retired U.S. Army Major General Paul Eaton. 

“The U.S. has had a long-standing tradition of immigrants come to the U.S. and have military service provide a path to citizenship,” said Eaton. “To have this turnaround, where they are actually taking a back seat to the civilian population strikes me as a bizarre turn of events.” 

Beyond the decreased numbers, this change will likely lower morale among immigrant troops. It’s difficult to imagine what an immigrant could do to prove their love of country beyond serving in the U.S. military. 

Crippled morale is, simply, never a good thing for any military. These policies that hurt immigrant soldiers will in time hurt the American public by making our military less engaged and ready for duty. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4187-immigrant-soldiers-applying-for-and-earning-citizenship-have-plummeted.html

Why The White House’s Measures To Curb Visa Overstays Are Inadequate

Written by Guillermo Cantor

The White House issued a memo on Monday directing the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to provide recommendations to reduce visa overstays. The recommendations, which are expected within 120 days, may include suspending or limiting entry of nationals of countries with high nonimmigrant visa overstay rates. 

Why is the administration pursuing these changes now? The rationale offered in the memo points to high overstay rates observed for nationals of certain countries. The memo directs the Secretary of State to focus on countries with overstay rates greater than 10 percent in the combined B1 – B2 visitor visa category (for business or tourism respectively), based on statistics reported by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

According to DHS’s latest Entry/Exit Overstay Report, there are 20 countries with overstay rates greater than 10 percent. Of those countries, 13 are in Africa, 3 in the Middle East, 2 in Southern Asia, and one in South East Asia and Oceania respectively. 

Yet the total number of visa overstays for most of those countries is very low. If we take out Nigeria, which accounts for about 10 percent of all overstays, the number of overstays for nationals of the other 19 countries combined represent only two percent of all overstays in fiscal year 2018. 

While in the past decade the number of overstays has surpassed the number of migrants entering the country through the southern border without inspection, there’s more to the story. A new report by the Center for Migration Studies explains that this is “not because overstays have increased more than [entries without inspection] but primarily because of the historic decline in illegal entries after 2000.” 

So is this effort to limit the number of visitors from certain countries really about the numbers? For several reasons, this doesn’t seem to be the case. The approach the memo takes would have little impact on reducing the number of visa overstays. 

Instead, this seems to be an attempt to punish certain countries. And penalizing entire countries—and the entire population within those countries—for the immigration violations committed by some of their citizens seems irrational and unfair. 

It’s also redundant. U.S. immigration law already imposes penalties on those who stay in the United States beyond the period authorized by the Secretary of Homeland Security. These penalties include bars for reentering the United States that range from three to 10 years. Additionally, U.S. consular officers have discretion to deny visas to applicants deemed likely to stay longer than permitted. 

While the memo also directs the Secretary of State to engage foreign governments in order to identify conditions contributing to their nationals’ overstay rates, it is uncertain how productive those engagements will be given the punitive terms with which this initiative was framed. 

Policies to address visa overstays, and enhance migration governance more generally, require a more thorough analysis. This should account for the factors that have driven increases and decreases of overstay rates for specific countries over time, the conditions in sending countries, the economic and political environment in the United States, as well as historical migration patterns. 

Unless the government takes a more rigorous and holistic approach to the immigration policy problems it is trying to address, sustainable solutions will continue to be hard to reach. 

 

 Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4133-The-White-Houses-Measures-to-Curb-Visa-Overstays-Are-Inadequate.html

USCIS Hits H-1B Cap Within Days, Showing America Needs Foreign Workers

Written by Walter Ewing

As another H-1B season comes to an end, one thing is clear: the demand for educated foreign workers is as high as ever. The annual H-1B cap was reached within a mere 5 business days. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) began accepting petitions for Fiscal Year 2020 on April 1. On April 12, the agency announced it’s received more petitions than the entire yearly cap allows.

There is a limit of 65,000 regular visas available each fiscal year for new hires. Another 20,000 visas are for foreign professionals who graduate with a master’s degree or Ph.D. from a U.S. university. In recent years, demand for H-1B visa numbers has far outpaced the supply. In fact, this is the seventh consecutive year that the regular H-1B visa cap was hit within a week.


USCIS issues H-1B policy changes

Beyond the inadequate number of visas, employers faced last-minute USCIS policy changes three years in a row. These policy announcements affected H-1B petitions submitted close to the first day of the filing season. 

USCIS announced a change in how petitions are processed only two short weeks before the start of this year’s filing deadline. Employers said it threw the whole program “into chaos.” 

The agency made another change in January 2019. USCIS reversed the order petitions are selected in. In the past, USCIS selected petitions for the 20,000 “master’s exemption” first. Now, the agency will first conduct a lottery using all H-1B petitions. After that lottery is complete, it will run a second lottery with all remaining “master’s exempt” petitions. 


How this may affect H-1B petition selection

This change will likely result in USCIS selecting more petitions for workers with U.S. master’s degrees or Ph.Ds. But that change doesn’t necessarily represent the best choice for every available position. 

Under the new system, some workers may slip through the cracks. 

For instance, a foreign national with a master’s degree from a U.S. university might have a better chance of getting an H-1B visa number than a scientist with a Ph.D. from a foreign university. 


H-1B workers will still be in high demand

Though these new policies may alter the H-1B selection process, the workers will continue to be in high demand. The inadequacy of the H-1B cap is one sign. But the fact that unemployment rates are low in occupations that use large numbers of workers with H-1B visas is another sign. 

For example, jobs in the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) field have low unemployment rates compared to the national average. H-1B workers are most commonly employed in STEM jobs. These low unemployment rates signal a demand for labor that exceeds supply. This means H-1B workers are not displacing native-born workers. 

H-1B workers also tend to earn higher wages than comparable U.S.-born workers, even after accounting for differences in age and occupation. This holds true across fields like information technology, engineering, healthcare, and post-secondary education. Employers aren’t saving money by hiring H-1B workers. This suggests these workers have skills which are in high demand. 

The arbitrary numerical cap on the number of new H-1B visas does not serve the interests of U.S. workers or the U.S. economy. Rather, the cap starves the labor force of talented foreign professionals who fuel economic growth and innovation. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4109-America-Needs-Foreign-Workers.html

Certain Detained Asylum Seekers Must Receive a Bond Hearing Within 7 Days, Judge Orders

Written by Kristin Macleod-Ball

Asylum seekers are often imprisoned in immigration detention for weeks or months before they can ask a judge to release them, even though they’re entitled to bond hearings. But this injustice may soon be corrected for some asylum seekers. 

On Friday, a U.S. district court judge ruled that certain detained asylum seekers must receive a bond hearing within seven days of requesting one. The Seattle judge also ordered that immigration courts must provide legal protections at the hearings. 

The ruling in the Padilla v. ICE case is a defeat for the Trump administration. It strikes a blow against the ongoing campaign to punish and deter migrants from seeking asylum. 

Judge Marsha J. Peckman ordered the immigration courts to: 

• Provide certain detained asylum seekers with a bond hearing within 7 days of requesting one.
• Put the burden of proof on the Department of Homeland Security—not the asylum seekers—to justify continued detention.
• Record or provide a transcript of the hearings.
• Issue a written decision that explains why an immigration judge decides to grant or deny bond at the time the decision is made.

The case is a nationwide class action brought by detained asylum seekers. The decision, which grants their motion for a preliminary injunction, applies to all detained asylum seekers who entered the United States between ports of entry and then passed an initial screening on their asylum claims called a credible fear interview. The American Immigration Council and Northwest Immigrant Rights Project represent the asylum seekers. 

This order could drastically change the situation of thousands of detained asylum seekers. Many would no longer need to wait for weeks or months to get a bond hearing. 

The order would also put in place important legal protections. Currently, even once they receive bond hearings, asylum seekers are at a disadvantage. They are often unable to gather evidence or obtain legal representation to help with their bond requests while behind bars. Yet, the courts still require they bear the burden of proof to show why they should be released. 

Under this system, asylum seekers also are often left in the dark about why their bond requests are denied. Bond hearings are not generally recorded. Judges also don’t have to explain in writing why they denied bond until after an immigrant has already appealed the decision. This creates serious problem for asylum seekers trying to appeal bond denials. 

These unfair practices leave many immigrants incarcerated during the entire, lengthy asylum process. Immigrants forced to stay in detention are less likely to succeed in their asylum cases. Some may even give up valid claims to remain in the United States to get out of unsafe detention conditions . 

The ruling is set to take effect within 30 days. However, the government could appeal the decision to a higher court or take other steps to prevent it from going into effect in those 30 days. 

This decision is still a first step towards ensuring asylum seekers have access to prompt, fair bond hearings.

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4103-Asylum-Seekers-Must-Receive-a-Bond-Hearing-Within-7-Days.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