The Raids Are Back
Reuters is reporting that US immigration officials are planning for sweeping deportation raids in May and June. The target is Central America mothers and children who unlawfully crossed the border and have an order of removal against them. Their planned raids are expected to be more comprehensive than their raids in January, which received attention.
Get Out Your Checkbooks: USCIS to Increase Filing Fees by An Average of 21%
DHS is proposing to increase USCIS filing fees by a weighted average of 21%. USCIS receives congressionally appropriated funds, but they are insufficient to cover the costs of its operations. Most applications that you file with USCIS require a filing fee that must be paid in whole. For example, if you are filing an employment-based petition for an employee, you are subject to a $325 filing fee. An application for citizenship bears a $680 filing fee currently. Premium processing, which is available for select employment-based petitions, is currently $1,225.
DHS is publishing a proposed a rule and is soliciting comments about the proposed adjusted fees. If you are going to be affected by these price increases, you can follow the links to explain why or why not you agree with the proposed changes. As per the rules, DHS is required to consider each comment before it publishes its final rule.
Here are some reasons pulled out of the proposed rule for why DHS needs this increase in filing fees:
USCIS completed a biennial fee review for FY 2016/2017 in 2015. The results indicate that current fee levels are insufficient to recover the full cost of activities funded by the IEFA. USCIS calculates its fees to recover the full cost of USCIS operations, which do not include the limited appropriated funds provided by Congress. USCIS anticipates if it continues to operate at current fee levels, it will experience an average annual shortfall of $560 million between IEFA revenues and costs. This projected shortfall poses a risk of degrading USCIS operations funded by IEFA revenue. The proposed rule would eliminate this risk by ensuring full cost recovery. DHS proposes to adjust fees by a weighted average increase of 21 percent. The weighted average increase is the percentage difference between the current and proposed fees by immigration benefit type.
In addition to ensuring that fees for each specific benefit type are adequate to cover the USCIS costs associated with administering the benefit, the weighted average increase of 21 percent also accounts for USCIS costs for services that are not directly fee funded. For instance, DHS proposes certain changes to how USCIS funds the costs for fee-exempt benefit types through IEFA fee collections received from other fee-paying individuals seeking immigration benefits.6 DHS also proposes to fund the costs of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program (to the extent not recovered from users),7 and the Office of Citizenship8 through the use of fees. The proposed fee schedule also accounts for increased costs to administer refugee processing. Revenues under the proposed rule would accommodate an anticipated increase in the refugee admissions ceiling to 100,000 for FY 2017. This is an increase of 30,000, or 43 percent, over the FY 2015 refugee admissions ceiling.
Raids Continue:
DHS Specifically Targeting Orders of Removal in Absentia
The Department of Homeland Security has continued its raids on Central American immigrants who have orders of removal in absentia. These raids started in January of this year. The raids have continued in spite of DHS apprehensions of unaccompanied children or children with family members falling. The Democratic party is fissured over these raids. About half of the Democratic members of Congress have criticized the continuing raids.
2015 DHS Statistics for Enforcement and Removal
The Department of Homeland Security has released statistics for immigration enforcement for Fiscal Year 2015. DHS apprehended 406,595 with a total of 462,463 removals and returns. The Border Patrol made 337,117 apprehensions and Immigration and Customs Enforcement removed or returned 235,413 individuals. 91% of the returned individuals were convicted criminals, which has been a priority in reducing threats to public safety, border security, and national security. The data also indicate that fewer individuals are attempting to cross the border without authorization
Sanctuary Cities Bill Defeated
S. 2146: Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act did not pass the Senate yesterday. It received 54 votes in favor, 6 short of the 60 required. The bill was proposed over the summer but recently was brought to a vote after being stuck in committee. The purpose of the bill was to limit federal grants to cities that do not comply with detainers issued by the Department of Homeland Security. There were also provisions to stiffen penalties for individuals who reenter the United States without authorization.
Sanctuary cities, such as San Francisco, have been lambasted for not cooperating with DHS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. S. 2146 is the federal action against sanctuary cities, but there are local actions that are gaining in popularity. North Carolina’s legislature voted to ban local governments from preventing local law enforcement from working with federal immigration agents. Michigan and Texas are preparing their own anti-sanctuary city bills.
Opposition to the bill has been pronounced, despite the public and Congressional popularity of it. A House version of the Senate bill passed in the House during the summer, but President Obama vetoed it. Two years ago, immigration reform held the promise of being comprehensive and bipartisan. Yesterday was the clearest political indication that it is currently partisan and divisive.