Federal court overturns Trump administration 'public burden' rules and work visas

The Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Wednesday, December 2, ruled against the controversial US President Donald Trump administration's "public burden" rule. Critics of the rule have argued that it has a deterrent effect, and immigrants do not seek medical help, so as not to become a "burden on society" and not be deprived of the right to the green card. Writes about it CNN.

Photo: Shutterstock

The "public burden" rule

This rule is makes it difficult for immigrants to obtain legal status if they use public benefits such as Medicaid, food stamps, and housing vouchers. It immediately met with resistance and was subsequently blocked by the court immediately after its introduction.

In a December 2 ruling, the court concluded that the rule is damaging the states financially and does not contribute to the self-sufficiency of immigrants, the administration said.

“In reviewing DHS's assertion that the overall purpose of the law is to promote immigrant self-sufficiency, the panel concluded that providing access to improved health care, nutrition, and additional housing benefits is consistent with that purpose,” the panel wrote. Judge Mary M. Schroeder.

The “public burden” rule spread to courts across the country, eventually reaching the Supreme Court, which allowed it to be applied nationwide in early 2020.

On the subject: Three ways to determine a person's immigration status in the United States

While that decision remains in effect, the ruling has since continued to be reviewed by a federal appeals court. In August, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the rule in three states—Connecticut, New York and Vermont. The government's request for a stay of the law was later granted, allowing the administration to begin implementing the rule.

US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) spokesman Dan Hetlage said that "USCIS is currently reviewing a ruling issued by the US Court of Appeals and has no other comments to provide."

The court narrowed down the nationwide injunction imposed by the lower court, stating that "the same issues concerning its validity have been discussed and considered in several federal and district courts." The decision applies to the Ninth District and other jurisdictions involved in cases, including Maine, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia, according to the California attorney general's office.

“As we continue to face an unprecedented economic and public health crisis, forcing hardworking families to choose between basic necessities and maintaining their immigration status is inhumane,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement. “An attack on health care in even one community is an attack on us all.” Today's victory is crucial, but the fight is not over yet. We will not allow the Trump administration's attacks on our immigrant communities to go unnoticed."

New rules for obtaining H-1B visa illegal

A federal court ruled that the administration broke the law when it published ava regulations restricting the issuance of H-1B visas. The plaintiffs — companies and universities led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — argued that economic data, lengthy administration delays and other factors showed Trump officials had no “good reason” for circumventing standard procedures, the paper wrote. Forbes.

You may be interested in: top New York news, stories of our immigrants and helpful tips about life in the Big Apple - read it all on ForumDaily New York

“The Court finds that plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment in their favor on the first two claims for damages, and the Court vacates the rules on the basis that they were promulgated in violation of law,” U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White wrote in the ruling. dated December 1, 2020

What does the judge's decision mean? First, the opinion is country-wide and not limited to one geographic region or group of plaintiffs, said Paul Hughes, lead counsel for plaintiffs.

Secondly, the decision was made by way of summary proceedings. “This means that we have a final decision striking down these two rules, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Labor (DOL) rules are now completely rescinded by Judge White's order,” Hughes explained. He noted that the administration could appeal or ask for a delay, but he is confident in the “strength of the decision.”

He and others will oversee the Department of Labor deciding wages for H-1B visa holders and employed immigrants. Companies have been required to use the much higher wage requirements contained in the DOL ordinance since its release. Greg Siskind expects the Department of Labor to quickly switch to the previous wage determination requirements in place prior to the new rule.

The DOL rule went into effect on October 8, 2020, and the DHS rule was supposed to go into effect on December 7, 2020. Judge White's decision overrides both rules.

During the November 23 hearing, Paul Hughes said of the rules: "We think this is a clear attempt to destroy the H-1B program." In their statements, company executives and university staff said the DHS rule would force data scientists, software engineers, medical personnel, and others to leave the United States. Many international students are not covered by the DHS regulation or will be excluded from the labor market under the DOL regulation.

“Plaintiffs argue that the court must consider how the COVID-19 pandemic affects unemployment, the jobs held by H-1B employees, and argue that defendants' analysis is too broad,” Judge White wrote in his decision. “The Court believes that the good cause exception should be construed narrowly, and in light of this standard, the Court finds that it is appropriate to focus on how the pandemic affects domestic unemployment for the types of positions held by H-1B workers.”

On the subject: How to get illegal immigration status in the USA: all the ways

Hughes argued at the hearing that DHS and DOL failed in their regulations to link the H-1B visa category to economic concerns related to the coronavirus. He cited an analysis from the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP), which showed: “The U.S. unemployment rate for those in computer-related occupations was 3,5% in September 2020—no significant change from the 3% unemployment rate in January 2020.” -go".

Judge White wrote: "The pandemic-related unemployment statistics presented continue to indicate that unemployment is concentrated in the service sector, and a large number of vacancies remain in the areas most affected by the rules: computer operations requiring highly skilled workers." During his talk, Hughes pointed to an NFAP analysis that found over 655 active job postings in the computer profession in the United States as of October 000, 2.

Another argument Hughes made in the papers, and during the Nov. 23 hearing, the judge found compelling: The administration's long delay in issuing the rules belies claims that the two rules were issued to address an emergency. “Plaintiffs argue that defendants unreasonably delayed taking action and lost their ability to rely on the good cause exception,” Judge White wrote. — Although both departments cited “rapid growth” and “widespread” unemployment as the basis for determining the need for “immediate” action. They haven't done this for over six months."

Judge White noted that “something like a DHS rule has been on the DHS agenda since 2017.” He also noted that the administration had previously announced that the Department of Labor would "adjust the wage scale" for H-1B visa holders during a briefing in April 2017. The judge confirmed the plaintiffs' argument in another area: the administration “issued a series of proposed rules not related to the COVID-19 pandemic” between March and October 2020.

On the subject: Receiving benefits is no longer an obstacle to immigration and citizenship: court decision

In his opinion, he cited another area in which the statements and actions of the administration did not coincide: “The Court also considers it important that although each rule allows for comments after publication, the Defendants did not suggest in the rules (or in oral arguments) that they would be provisional until "the emergency is alleviated."

The decision has far-reaching implications, the most important of which may be its impact on the future administration. Analysts note that the Trump administration has been hostile to highly skilled immigration for the past four years. Failure to make these H-1B rules permanent means that future administrations will find it much easier to adopt more neutral or even benevolent policies towards highly qualified foreign nationals, including international students.

Read also on ForumDaily:

Former illegal immigrants: celebrity immigrants who could be deported from the United States

Updated test for US citizenship: all questions and answers in Russian

The IRS admitted that it mistakenly sent financial aid checks to citizens of other countries

What will happen to the Trump wall after Joe Biden comes to power

Three ways to determine a person's immigration status in the United States

Do you want more important and interesting news about life in the USA and immigration to America? — support us donate! Also subscribe to our page Facebook. Select the “Priority in display” option and read us first. Also, don't forget to subscribe to our РєР ° РЅР ° Р »РІ Telegram  and Instagram- there is a lot of interesting things there. And join thousands of readers ForumDaily New York — there you will find a lot of interesting and positive information about life in the metropolis.