Posts

Trump Proposes Immigration Cuts in New Bill

by

by Aysha Qamar

“It’s great to be here today to unveil legislation that would represent the most significant reform to our immigration system in a half a century,” President Donald Trump said at a White House event.

Trump has proposed a bill -called the RAISE Act, Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment– that would cut legal immigration in half with a merit-based entry system that rewards applicants who have job skills, education and the ability to speak English.

According to the White House, 1 million immigrants come into the country and get Green Cards granting them permanent legal status every year.

“The RAISE Act,” he said, “will reduce poverty, increase wages, and save taxpayers billions and billions of dollars.”

“This legislation will not only restore our competitive edge in the 21st century, but it will restore the sacred bonds of trust between America and its citizens,” Trump said. “This legislation demonstrates our compassion for struggling American families who deserve an immigration system that puts their needs first and that puts America first.”

This proposed act would enable the most dramatic changes to the current system of legal immigration and represents the president’s latest effort to better control the flow of immigrants to the United States. Since taking office, Trump has limited visitors from select Muslim-majority countries, increased immigration arrests and encouraged the building of a wall on the southern border.

Introduced by two Republican senators, Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia, the bill was formulated to protect American workers from competition from low-skilled foreign workers. The proposal would limit the total number of green cards issues mainly affecting family-based immigration. It also proposes a cap on the number of refugees admitted every year and eliminates a program that provides green cards via lottery to people from countries that send few immigrants to the United States.

Only one out of every 15 immigrants to the US comes here because of their skills, according to the administration. This legislation would restrict the number of immigrants flooding into the United States with few skills and a need for government aid or health care, Trump said.

While the bill will not reduce employment-based green cards, it would change how the recipients are selected by putting in place a points-based system that rewards people who speak English and have higher degrees or work experience.

“This competitive application process will favor applicants who can speak English, financially support themselves and their families and demonstrate skills that will contribute to our economy,” Trump said.

Legislators from both parties have criticized the proposal, which depicts itself as a way to protect American workers. Many have spoken out against the proposal, with some even saying it will never pass.

“Instead of catching criminals, Trump wants to tear apart communities and punish immigrant families that are making valuable contributions to our economy,” said Tom Perez, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee. “That’s not what America stands for.”

Under the current system, American citizens can sponsor spouses, parents and minor children for an unrestricted number of visas, while siblings and adult children are given preferences for a limited number of visas available to them. Legal permanent residents holding green cards can also sponsor spouses and children.

The legislation’s merit system would still allow for spouses and minor children of Americans and legal residents to come into the country, but would eliminate preferences for other relatives, like siblings and adult children.

“It’s pro-American immigration reform that the American people want, that the American people deserve, and that puts the needs of the working class ahead of the investor class,” Stephen Miller, Trump’s top policy aid said.

Trump Asks Supreme Court to Block Travel Ban Ruling

by

by Aysha Qamar

The U.S. Justice Department asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block a judge’s ruling that prevented the President’s travel ban from being applied to grandparents of U.S. citizens and refugees already being processed by resettlement agencies, Friday.

In a court filing, the administration asked the justices to overturn Thursday’s decision by a U.S. district judge in Hawaii, that limited those affected by the administration’s temporary ban on refugees and travelers from six predominately Muslim countries.

The Hawaii federal judge ruled that grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews, and siblings-in-law must be added to the list of close family members, who can still get visas to travel to the United States during the 90 days while the executive order is in force.

Last month, the Supreme Court announced it would hear a challenge to the travel ban later this year, but partially lifted an injunction that barred the order from taking effect.

The State Department said on June 29 that only parents, parents-in-law, spouses, fiancés, children, and children-in-law would be exempt from the ban on visas for travel.

It acted after the Supreme Court stated that while aspects of the travel ban could be enforced, people abroad with credible claim of a “bona fide relationship” to a person or entity in the U.S. would be exempt and allowed into the country.

In response to a motion by the state of Hawaii to broaden the exceptions, U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson said the State Department’s definition of close family member “represents the antithesis of common sense.” Grandparents, he said “are the epitome of close family members” and past Supreme Court decisions have defined the term much more broadly.

Watson, appointed by former President Barack Obama, was one of the federal judges who issued a nationwide injunction blocking Trump’s initial and revised ban.

While the Trump administration argued that directive did not include grandparents, uncles, aunts, nieces, and nephews-Watson said that the administration’s definition of “bona fide relationship” was too narrow, and ruled that grandparents were also among those allowed into the country.

During the court filling, the Justice Department said Watson’s ruling on refugees would make the Supreme Court’s decision on that part of the executive order “effectively meaningless” as it included not just “close” family members but all.

The ruling would allow for refugees to continue to resettle in the United States, beyond a cap of 50,000, which was set by the executive order.

While the Supreme Court is currently not in session, it can hear emergency requests.

The administration’s application could be directed either to Justice Anthony Kennedy, responsible for emergency requests from western states, or to the nine justices together. If the court as a whole is asked to weigh in, five votes are needed to grant a request.

“The Supreme Court has had to correct this lower court once, and we will now reluctantly return directly to the Supreme Court to again vindicate the rule of law and the executive branch’s duty to protect the nation,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement.

Lawyers for the Trump administration have asked the Supreme Court to let the government use the list it compiled in June for deciding who can apply for a visa under the limited enforcement of the president’s executive order on travel.

Supreme Court Partially Upholds Travel Ban, Trump Welcomes Indians

by

by Tina Lapsia

Just after Muslims around the world finished observing the holy month of Ramadan as they celebrated Eid, the Supreme Court on Monday, June 26 lifted most of the temporary injunctions placed on President Trump’s travel ban that was struck down by multiple circuit courts.

The Court will hear the merits of the actual case against the ban, which temporarily restricts travel to the US by citizens from six majority-Muslim countries (Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen) and from all refugees, in October.

In partially upholding the ban by a unanimous vote, the Court wrote that it may “may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” It continued, “But when it comes to refugees who lack any such connection to the United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance tips in favor of the government’s compelling need to provide for the nation’s security.” However, the Court also warned the Trump administration to continue reviewing its vetting procedures that it had put on hold while waiting for a decision on the travel ban, which bans travel from the six countries for 90 days and for all refugees for 120 days.

President Trump expressed his support for the highest court’s opinion, tweeting:

Interestingly enough, the Supreme Court did not cite President Trump’s prior tweets about the travel ban, which were rumored and predicted to hurt him in the case as they did in the lower courts. Some of his incendiary remarks included:

Now that the travel ban is in the clear until at least October, the Department of Homeland Security is expected to begin its implementation on Thursday, June 28. In a statement released on Monday, the Department said it would work closely with the State and Justice Departments to make sure the travel ban does not cause the same level of widespread chaos as when the first travel ban went into effect in January. “The implementation of the executive order will be done professionally, with clear and sufficient public notice, particularly to potentially affected travelers, and in coordination with partners in the travel industry,” DHS promised in the Monday statement.

Ironically, the news of the partial reinstatement of the “Muslim ban” also came on the heels of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s first visit with President Trump at the White House on Monday.

Reaffirming the United States’ promise to strengthen its business and educational ties with India and sealing it with a hug (see below), President Trump after his talks with Prime Minister Modi also announced on Tuesday that he welcomes Indian visitors to America through an expedited process as part of India’s entry into the International Expedited Traveler Initiative (Global Entry Program). The program, which is run by the US Customs and Border Protection, allows for faster clearance for pre-approved travelers to the United States and also includes citizens from Switzerland and the United Kingdom. As India’s relationship with the United States has deepened since Prime Minister Modi’s multiple meetings with President Obama, this comes as more good news for desis living abroad.

Source: CNN

From banning certain people of color into the country one moment to facilitating the ease for certain tourists of color to enter the country the next, the unpredictability of President Trump’s decisions regarding foreigners certainly may cause anxiety and confusion for many. We now just have to hold our breaths until October and hope that the Supreme Court recognizes the unconstitutionality of the President’s prejudiced attitudes towards Muslims and/or that the President does not try to enforce another radical executive order.

muslim ban 2.0

Here’s What You Need to Know About the Muslim Ban 2.0

by

by Aysha Qamar

Muslim Ban 2.0 has dropped and here is what you need to know.

In January, after his first immigration order was challenged and effectively shut down—President Donald Trump threatened to come back with another.

He has now come back with another order. The new order unveiled by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Department of Homeland Security John Kelly has been coined by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as the Muslim Ban 2.0.

The changes made to this order were made to make it more defendable in court if faced with similar lawsuits as the first. This executive order limiting immigration now bans citizens from not seven but six Muslim-majority countries temporarily.

“The Trump administration has conceded that its original Muslim ban was indefensible. Unfortunately, it has replaced it with a scaled-back version that shares the same fatal flaws,” Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a written statement.

The ban was rewritten in order to combat legal challenges to the original ban, such as claims based on equal protection rights granted by the Constitution, the First Amendment’s prohibition of government establishment of religion, and a non-discrimination statute of an immigration law.

“What they did is taken the previous Muslim ban tweaked it to try to go around the court orders and are going to reintroduce it. But again it’s not based in reality, it’s based in bigotry, it’s based in politics…the intent behind it is the same, block Muslims from coming to this country, and that hasn’t changed no matter what the wording of the new ban is,” Ibrahim Hooper, a representative from the Council of American-Islamic Relations, said on MSNBC.

Two weeks after the federal appeals court hearing, a Department of Homeland Security report revealed that no evidence was found that the citizens of the targeted countries posed any unique threat.

“The only way to actually fix the Muslim ban is not to have a Muslim ban,” Jadwat said. “Instead, President Trump has recommitted himself to religious discrimination, and he can expect continued disapproval from both the courts and the people.”

So what exactly are the differences between the Muslim Ban and Muslim Ban 2.0?

1. The ban is not immediate, it will be going into effect on March 16.
A 10-day notice is being given instead of immediate action like the original plan, Trump tweeted that such a notice would allow for “the bad” to quickly rush into our country, however, this implementation was the result of the confusion caused at airports from the first abrupt order.

2. Iraq was removed from the original list.
Besides the removal of Iraq—the 6 other countries remain the same in their original order: ran, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Syria, and Libya. However, this new order includes an explanation why each of these countries was chosen. Travelers from these predominantly-Muslim countries will still face a 90-day ban on travel to the U.S.

3. Current visa holders and green card legal residents are no longer affected.

4. Syrian refugees are now barred temporarily (120 days), not indefinitely and refugees of minority religions are no longer favored.

5. Asylum that was already granted to refugees will be honored.

6. References to support the Constitution and other beliefs have been removed.

7. Details have been added about why the six countries were selected.

“The vast majority of individuals convicted of terrorism and terrorism-related offenses since 9/11 came here from outside of our country,” Trump said last Tuesday, during the address to a joint session of Congress.

“We cannot allow a beachhead of terrorism to form inside America,” he stated. “And we cannot allow our nation to become a sanctuary for extremists.”

However, “Since 2001, 18 of the 36 Muslim extremists who have engaged in attacks inside the United States were born in the United States, while 14 migrated here as children and would not have been stopped by the new vetting process, according to an analysis by Charles Kurzman, a professor at the University of North Carolina.”

According to The NY Times, “none came from the banned nations; Muslim extremists have accounted for 16 out of 240,000 murders in the United States since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.”

[Source: BBC.com]

[Source: BBC.com]

Hope remains as leaders take a stand, like New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who issued a statement Monday stating his office is ready to take the Trump Administration to court.

“While the White House may have made changes to the ban, the intent to discriminate against Muslims remains clear,” he said. “My office is closely reviewing the new executive order, and I stand ready to litigate — again — in order to protect New York’s families, institutions, and economy.”

All we can do now is educate ourselves, resist, protest, and wait for the challenges to this new ban to succeed.

Update: Judge Derrick K. Watson of Federal District Court in Honolulu, Hawaii has issued a block on the Muslim Ban 2.0. There is still more work to be done in the face of rampant Islamophobia. Stay informed.

refugees

As Americans, We Are All Refugees

by

by Azher Quader

From conversations on the streets to living rooms, there is a lot of emotional talk these days over the topic of refugees. Although some three million refugees have come into the country since 1980 escaping the tyranny of wars to find safe haven here, we are in fact all refugees in America who have found refuge in it for one reason or another.

Some of us are here and call it home because we could not live in another place where we would be hunted down, held hostage or even beheaded. Some of us are here because the atrocity of a faithless state would not allow us the freedom to practice our faith. Some of us are here because America provides a safe haven for an entrepreneurial spirit, to experiment and explore the capitalistic model like no other place in the globe. Some of us are here because we are tired and exhausted from the societal corruption that plagues the countries we have come from. Some of us are here because we have sought refuge in the institutions of learning and academia, that meet the demands of our ambitions, that were sadly unmet and unrealized from where we came from. Some of us are here because we could no longer tolerate remaining in the shackles of transgenerational poverty, which had imprisoned our families and forced them to live in servitude and indignity. Some of us are here because we seek refuge in a constitution that guarantees so many freedoms from speech to worship to our reproductive rights and grants us permission to practice our sexuality the way we see fit.  Some have come here driven by their despotic political systems, to experience the blessings of democracy, with their offspring finding occasionally great fame and recognition as leaders in the country their forefathers found refuge in. Some of us are here who may have once come on slave ships, but now have won our freedoms and seek refuge in the laws which protect our freedoms and our dignity.

Yes, we are all refugees, even those who came here from nowhere, but now are given the option to live on some distant ‘reservations,’ as a refuge, where they can enjoy their own traditional ways of life and become refugees in their own ancestral land.

Can there be any doubt that we live in a tremendous refuge and that we are all refugees! Some may lose sight of their condition given the passage of a few generations. Some may recognize it however with ease as their fortunate present reality.

Is there then a refugee who has not robbed, not raped, not killed, not bribed, not raked in millions and ruined the lives of others, not rigged the system to profit from it, not broken the law, ever? We are all guilty. Who should we then ban from among us?

The aging couple, who have lived peacefully in the shadows for half their lives, toiled and labored to earn a livelihood, grown their kids born in the country, to become respectful citizens and made a life for themselves, only to hear the threat of deportation ringing from our system which has no better answers for them?

Or the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival) protected kid whose only refuge is America which she calls her home, where she wakes up every morning not knowing what new Executive Order the dawn will bring, which can turn her dream into a nightmare?

Or the undocumented student who overstayed his visa, worked without papers to support himself, has no criminal record, yet fearful of every knock on his door, wondering when will he meet the fury of our system which denies him a refuge and live in our country?

America has always been a refuge, a safe haven, a ‘shining city on a hill,’ welcoming people from far and near, troubled with myriads of problems, seeking a new life of peace and opportunity. Banning people from whole countries, implementing massive deportations, detaining people on fear and suspicion, betrays our foundational values for compassion and justice. It creates an alternative reality for domestic security, that is sadly mistaken. We have been there before in a dark moment of our history. How can we forget the Japanese internment camps? Will we not learn from the painful lessons of our past?

May Allah guide our leaders to do what is right.