Dublin destroys its latest tent city as Ireland struggles to cope with migrant influx

Irish authorities have dismantled another 'tent city' in Dublin as the country continues to face an influx of migrants, many of whom have arrived from the UK.

Asylum seekers had pitched more than 100 tents in a makeshift camp along Dublin's Grand Canal, a short walk from the International Protection Office, as the government struggles to provide them with accommodation.

Pictures show the early morning operation, which involved crews checking tents were empty before they were spray-painted with an 'X' and cleared onto a truck by a 'grabber' machine.

The encampment sprung up along the waterway just days after more than 200 asylum seekers were cleared from a similar makeshift camp on nearby Mount Street.

The removal comes amid an ongoing row with the UK government over asylum seekers crossing the border from Northern Ireland, with claims that they are doing so to avoid deportation to Rwanda.

The Irish Government said Thursday morning's operation involved the Irish police service, Dublin City Council, the national health service, the Department of Integration and a waterway authority.

It was conducted more quickly than the previous operation last week, which removed people who had been living in the roadside camp for months.

A large number of asylum seekers reportedly boarded buses by 7.30am today, with the operation wrapped up by 7.45am.

The Irish government said that all asylum seekers were moved to accommodation in County Dublin, with a total of 186 applicants accommodated in the suburb of Citywest, and 99 at Crooksling, an hour from the city centre in the Dublin mountains.

A statement from the Government said: 'The purpose of the operation is to ensure the safe movement of people seeking international protection from the tents on the Grand Canal to International Protection Accommodation Service (IPAS)-designated accommodation.

'The IPAS-designated accommodation has toilets and showers; health services; indoor areas where food is provided; facilities to charge phones and personal devices; access to transport to and from Dublin City Centre; and 24-hour onsite security.'

Speaking in parliament on Wednesday, Irish premier Simon Harris said the similar operation last week had a 'very positive impact' and averted a 'public health near-emergency'.

He said: 'I continue to believe that it was the right action to take. I became Taoiseach four weeks ago, I took charge of this situation.

'There had been, in my view, a tacit acceptance by many State agencies that the situation on Mount Street could just continue and was just the new norm. That was not right.'

He added: 'We will deal with the Grand Canal. Action will be taken.'

Justice Minister Helen McEntee, who recently alleged that more than 80 per cent of migrants in Ireland are coming in via Northern Ireland to avoid deportation to Rwanda, said that the government must ensure a tent city does not return.

'Once people are moved, measures will be put in place to ensure that it doesn't happen again.

'When they are provided with that accommodation, it's also really important that we don't see scenes like we're seeing now at Mount Street again, that it cannot re-emerge, that we have hundreds of tents – not just outside the international protection office – but outside people's homes, outside people's businesses.'

Tensions between London and Dublin over migration have been mounting in recent weeks, with each blaming the other for their immigration problems.

Rishi Sunak declared last month that he is 'not interested' in taking back migrants from Ireland given that the EU refuses to take back Channel migrants who arrived from France.

His comments were a sharp response to senior Irish ministers who warned they would draft emergency laws to force refugees back to the UK.

Taoiseach Simon Harris vowed in to pass new laws to facilitate returns of migrants after the country's courts declared the UK cannot be classed as 'safe' due to its pact with Rwanda.

But the UK Government said it would ignore any law passed by Ireland, with a No 10 spokesperson declaring: 'Even if Ireland was to pass legislation, it is up to the UK Government to decide who it does or does not accept into the country.

'We are not going to start accepting returns from the EU, just as France doesn't accept returns from the UK.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13398947/Dublin-destroy-tent-city-Ireland-struggles-cope-migrant-influx-blamed-Britain-Rwanda-policy.html

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
    
http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
 
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

The Ideological Roots of the Open Borders Push

Why does the Biden administration want open borders? As a researcher and writer on immigration, that’s the question I often get asked.

Here are the three reasons I think are behind President Joe Biden’s deliberate border chaos: electoral politics, extortion, and, most insidiously, ideology. I’ll start with ideology and come back to the other two reasons in my next two weekly BorderLine columns.

The most dangerous driver behind Biden’s open borders is ideological. Policy differences can be negotiated, but as we’re seeing on college campuses, people fanatically committed to an idea can prove intransigent, regardless of the facts.

When you see the word “abolition” used in connection with criminal justice and immigration, you might be confused. Americans rightly associate the term with ending slavery and abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison who were active before the Civil War.

Why are academics, politicians, and race professionals using it in 2024?

Those saying “abolitionist” today have appropriated it for the positive historical connotation it possesses, but they mean something else entirely. To see the roots of their ideology, you have to go back to the dawn of the New Left, as described by Chris Rufo in his book “America’s Cultural Revolution.”

Under their intellectual godfather, German academic Herbert Marcuse, Marxist-Leninists, Black Panthers, the Weather Underground terrorist group, and Students for a Democratic Society gathered.

This leftist alliance believed—as the Students for a Democratic Society magazine Prairie Fire explained—that the U.S. was founded on genocide, slavery, and racism. Its goal was to abolish the existing capitalist America and build a new society. One element of this was destroying the justice system. The Black Panthers’ manifesto thus called for the release of all black men who were incarcerated, no matter for what crime.

As Rufo writes, “[Communist Angela] Davis and her comrades began to call not for the release of individual criminals, but for the abolition of the entire system.” Davis said that “a society without racism … has to be a society without prisons.”

The Black Lives Matter organization adopted the same agenda of “abolition.” The mobs that destroyed a police station and looted Minneapolis in 2020 shouted, “Abolish the police, then the prisons.” The “abolitionist” activists in the Seattle CHAZ commune wanted to abolish the police, prisons, and courts.

BLM founder Patrisse Cullors was crystal clear in this Harvard Law Review essay from 2019: “Abolition means no borders. Abolition means no Border Patrol. Abolition means no Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” America is the source of world evil, in her view, and thus has no right to exist as a nation state nor keep anyone in the world from entering its borders.

Some Biden administration officials seem to share this core belief. Avideh Moussavian, a senior appointee at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, tweeted “#abolishICE” in 2018 and “cut ICE and [Customs and Border Protection] funding” in 2019.

Another Biden appointee, Claire Trickler-McNulty, undermined ICE from within before leaving for a nongovernmental organization partly funded by the Vera Institute for Justice. The Vera Institute says, “The U.S. immigration system is an arrest-to-deportation pipeline rooted in racism,” wants no detention of people in the U.S. illegally, and grants millions to nongovernmental organizations defending illegal immigrants.

“Abolition” ideology also has clear links with today’s campus support of Hamas. Take a look at this course taught at Columbia University this Spring by professor Mohamed Abdou, titled “Decolonial-Queerness and Abolition in SWAN.” SWANA likely stands for South West Asian and North African people. A sentence from the course description sums it up:

Using intersectional/assemblage-based theories, what decolonial, gender-based readings and formulations of feminisms/queerness exist that evade the apparent tidiness of European feminist and narrow LGBTQIA categories that characterizes most (non)Euro-American political queer-feminist scholarship beyond the depiction of queer BIPOC as co-opted and duped, colonized pawns of ‘Gay Empire’ towards elucidating critical discussions on identity, agency, subjectivity, and dissidence?

Parents are paying $90,000 a year for their kids to learn that kind of balderdash. But even if you can’t make any sense of that sentence, you can be sure of what Abdou means by “abolition.”

Columbia University now resembles Gaza as designed by outdoor equipment retailer Eastern Mountain Sports. Meanwhile at Princeton University, students briefly set up a camp last week “in solidarity with Gaza to protest Princeton’s role in funding the ongoing genocide,” according to organizers Princeton Israeli Apartheid Divest.

Dan-el Padilla Peralta was among faculty who signed a letter supporting the Princeton students and boycotting Columbia University. He is a “classics” professor who calls his field “equal parts vampire and cannibal” and the foundation of white supremacy, and argues that it should be abolished.

Peralta came from the Dominican Republic as a child, and his family overstayed their visas and became illegal immigrants. Leftist academics such as Peralta do not like nations or borders any more than they do classical antiquity. In his book “Undocumented,” Peralta wrote, “Demography is a b**ch. Holla at me if you want me to break it down for you.” By this, Peralta implies that without immigration enforcement, the “global majority”—defined here as everyone but white Europeans—will be able to dominate every country.

What we’re seeing at the southern border and on college campuses comes from the same ideological roots and ends the same way: anarchy

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/05/02/ideological-roots-open-borders-push-borderline

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
    
http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
 
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

USCIS and DOL Policy Updates May Allow More Employers to Circumvent Protections for American Workers

USCIS issued a policy update on April 10, 2024, that may expand which types of occupations can circumvent U.S. labor market protections that are required by federal law for employers to sponsor a foreign worker for a green card. By adopting the Department of Labor’s (DOL) definition of which occupations are considered “Schedule A”, USCIS is attempting to streamline how employers can petition foreign workers for green cards at the expense of the already minimal U.S. worker protections. This policy update comes at the same time DOL is considering amending its own regulations to add STEM occupations to the “Schedule A” list. Notably, an employer trying to fill a position in a “Schedule A” occupation may petition USCIS for a foreign worker without first trying to hire an American worker for that position.

Typically, federal law requires employers who wish to petition for an immigrant worker to conduct a labor market test and submit a permanent labor certification application to the DOL Employment and Training Administration (ETA) in a process known as PERM. This process, when completed, allows an employer to hire a foreign worker to work permanently in the United States and allows that foreign worker to receive a green card (i.e., obtain lawful permanent resident status). Green card holders may eventually become citizens or may live and work in the United States as LPRs indefinitely if they choose not to naturalize.

The purpose of the PERM labor certification is to both protect the U.S. labor market from unfair competition and to maintain the working conditions of domestic jobs. While the PERM program is far from perfect and subject to substantial fraud, as reported by the DOL Office of Inspector General (OIG), it is the main tool used by the U.S. government to prevent U.S. workers from being replaced with foreign workers benefiting from the employment-based immigrant visa categories. (The PERM process does not apply to foreign workers seeking to enter the United States on nonimmigrant (temporary) visas.)

What Does the PERM Process Require? The PERM process requires DOL ETA to certify to USCIS that there are: (1) not sufficient U.S. workers able, willing, qualified, and available to accept the job opportunity in the area of intended employment; and (2) that the employment of the foreign worker will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers. Only after a PERM case is certified can an employer file a Form I-140 to petition USCIS to classify the beneficiary as an immigrant worker. Generally, PERM certification is required for employment-based 2nd and 3rd preference petitions (EB-2 and EB-3 immigrant visas).

Before an employer can file a PERM application with ETA, the employer must request and obtain a prevailing wage rate from ETA using the prevailing wage determination form. The prevailing wage rate is the average wage paid to similarly employed workers in a specific occupation in the geographic area of intended employment.

Additionally, regulations require that employers attempt to hire a U.S. worker first by advertising the open position in a local paper as a recruiting announcement for the opportunity twice. The employer must also place a job posting for 30 days with the State Workforce Agency (SWA). After the pre-filing recruitment process is completed, the employer must prepare a report describing the steps taken and the results achieved, including the number of hires and number of applicants rejected, categorized by reasons for any rejection.

What Is a “Schedule A” Occupation? For certain occupations, however, DOL has predetermined that there are not sufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified, and available to fill positions in these occupations. These occupations are referred to as “Schedule A” occupations. Employers, in these cases, may bypass the DOL certification process and, instead, submit their labor certification directly to USCIS.

DOL regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 654.15(b)(2) require, however, that the employer provide its bargaining representative or its employees with notice that an Application for Permanent Employment Certification was filed. The notice must be posted for at least 10 consecutive business days in a clearly visible place at the location of employment.

Currently, DOL has designated two groups of occupations under Schedule A: registered nurses and physical therapists; and beneficiaries with exceptional ability in the science or arts (except performing arts) and beneficiaries with exceptional ability in the performing arts subject to certain conditions. (DOL has also determined that sheepherders are eligible for this type of processing.) DOL regulations define a science or art as “any field of knowledge or skill in which colleges and universities commonly offer specialized courses leading to a degree in the knowledge and/or skill”.

The regulation clarifies that an alien “need not have studied at a college or university in order to qualify for the Group II occupation”. The beneficiary, however, must demonstrate “exceptional ability” in their occupation by providing evidence of widespread acclaim and international recognition by experts in their field to qualify, as well as meet other eligibility requirements, such as demonstrating that the intended job in the United States will require exceptional ability.

Why Is USCIS Adopting DOL’s Definition of “Science or Arts”? USCIS made this policy clarification as an attempt to streamline the green card application process. As of March 2024, DOL reported that, on average, a PERM certification takes ETA about 397 days to issue. This does not include the time required for USCIS to process the beneficiary’s Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers. USCIS reports that the agency is currently taking as long as 10 months to process 80 percent of Form I-140 submissions. My colleague Andrew R. Arthur and I have both written about how Biden administration priorities have hindered USCIS’s ability to efficiently administer the legal immigration system.

What’s Next? DOL is expected to propose to amend its regulations to expand the list of occupations that may be considered “Schedule A” or exempt from PERM labor certification requirements. DOL issued what is known in the regulatory world as an RFI or a “request for information”, to request input from the public on “evaluating the utility of expanding Schedule A to include STEM occupations”, and provide input on “the appropriate data sources and methods for determining whether labor shortages exist, whether Schedule A should be used to alleviate any labor shortages in STEM occupations should it be determined from these data sources and methods that such shortages exist, and if so, how the Department could establish a reliable, objective, and transparent methodology for identifying STEM occupations that are experiencing labor shortages”.

DOL’s request for public input was issued expressly because DOL’s current data sets do not demonstrate a labor shortage of U.S. workers in STEM. Nevertheless, DOL is considering extending “Schedule A” status to STEM employers.

Why Does This Matter? Both USCIS and DOL’s policy initiatives indicate a clear objective to expand the types of employers that may circumvent the PERM certification process. By expanding the types of employers who may qualify for Schedule A, more employers will be allowed to hire foreign workers without first advertising the employment opportunity to U.S. workers. As stated above, however, DOL has not produced data that demonstrates that the U.S. labor market’s needs justify sidestepping procedures designed to protect jobs for U.S. workers in additional occupations.

DOL Should Prioritize Strengthening the PERM Process Before Expanding Schedule A List. Improving protections for U.S workers should be DOL’s primary goal for its regulatory agenda. Many improvements can be made without the enactment of new legislation.

For example, DOL could strengthen PERM by updating the required recruiting methods that employers must undergo to list job openings to make it easier for U.S. workers to find such listings. Current regulations require employers to list their openings twice in Sunday papers and list their posting for 30 days with the SWA — but, today, U.S. workers are more likely to seek employment opportunities using the internet rather than from paper newspapers.

DOL should also amend its regulations to require employers to submit documentation to ETA to support their attestation that they are complying with all PERM requirements. In 2020, DOL OIG found that,

An application does not provide ETA enough information to make an informed decision on whether there were no able, available, qualified, and willing U.S. workers for the job opportunity and the job opportunity would not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers similarly employed. The application does not require the employer to submit the information included in the original advertisement (i.e., the job location, position description, job requirements, wage, and where to send resumes). Additionally, the application does not require the employer to document the number of all applicants who applied for the job opportunity, the interviewed applicants’ names, and why the employer did not hire the individuals interviewed.

ETA could also engage in a post-adjudication review to confirm the veracity of the employer’s attestations and verify that a bona fide, full-time opening actually exists and is available to U.S. workers.

Without strengthening this process, DOL cannot faithfully certify to the USCIS that there are not sufficient U.S. workers able, willing, qualified, and available to accept the job opportunity in the area of intended employment and that employment of the foreign worker will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers.

https://cis.org/Jacobs/USCIS-and-DOL-Policy-Updates-May-Allow-More-Employers-Circumvent-Protections-American

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
    
http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
 
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Biden Administration Extends Obamacare Eligibility to DACA by Regulation

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) estimates that the rule may cost taxpayers $305 million per year by fiscal year 2026

(HHS) is amending its regulations to allow beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program1 to be eligible to receive benefits under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA, also known as Obamacare) — including government subsidized health insurance. HHS estimates that the rule may cost taxpayers $305 million per year by fiscal year 2026.

The ACA generally requires that in order to enroll in a qualified health plan through an exchange, an individual must be either a citizen or national of the United States or be “lawfully present” in the United States. The ACA also generally requires that individuals be “lawfully present” to be eligible for insurance affordability programs such as premium tax credits, advance payments of the premium tax credit, cost sharing reductions, and Basic Health Program (BHP) enrollment. While the ACA does not specifically define “lawfully present”, it does specify that an alien must be “reasonably expected to be lawfully present for the period of their enrollment”.

When HHS issued regulations governing eligibility to enroll in a Qualified Health Plan through an Exchange in August 2012, HHS explicitly excluded DACA recipients from the definition of “lawfully present”. HHS reasoned that considering DACA recipients eligible for insurance affordability programs was “inconsistent with the relief that the DACA program afforded”, i.e., temporary protection from removal proceedings. The agency, however, included Temporary Protected Status (TPS), Deferred Enforced Departure (DED), parole, and other deferred action recipients as “lawfully present” for the purpose of the statute. HHS also excluded DACA recipients from the definition of “lawfully residing” for purposes of Medicaid or Children’s Health Insurance Programs (CHIP) eligibility under section 214 of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA 214 option). In 2014, HHS issued regulations establishing the framework governing a BHP, which also aligned the definition of “lawfully present” with that issued for Exchanges, Medicaid, and CHIP.

Under this final rule, DACA recipients will specifically gain eligibility for enrollment in a Qualified Health Plan through an Exchange and a BHP for states that elect to operate a BHP. The definition of “lawfully present” used in determining eligibility for Medicaid and CHIPs under the CHIPRA 214 option continues to apply. DACA recipients, however, will continue to remain eligible for limited Medicaid coverage for emergency medical condition treatment consistent with 8 U.S.C. § 1611(b)(1)(A) and 42 C.F.R. § 435.406(b).

HHS has justified this change in policy by stating that, after “further review and consideration, it is clear that the DACA policy is intended to provide recipients with a degree of stability and assurance that would allow them to obtain education and lawful employment, including because recipients remain lower priorities for removal. Extending eligibility to these individuals is consistent with those goals.” Of course, the ACA was enacted by Congress before the Obama administration created the DACA program in June 2012. Congress never contemplated providing subsidized health insurance to DACA, and, perhaps more importantly, Congress has never authorized DACA.

USCIS reports estimated the DACA population to stand at about 545,000 individuals as of September 30, 2023 (more than 800,000 aliens have had DACA at one time or another since the program’s creation in 2012). Given that estimate, this rule may benefit as many as 147,000 DACA recipients, although HHS predicts that 100,000 DACA recipients are likely to enroll for the Exchanges and BHP. Most DACA recipients (73 percent) are already covered by health insurance through employer-based plans.

CIS submitted a public comment opposing HHS’s proposal to allow DACA recipients to receive ACA benefits in June 2023. In our comment, CIS argued that HHS should continue to exclude DACA from this definition because DACA has been determined by federal courts to be substantively invalid under federal law.

Additionally, CIS argued that HHS must also exclude TPS, DED, parole, and deferred action recipients (including DACA), generally, from the definition of “lawfully present” for ACA benefit purposes because these categories of aliens may not be “reasonably expected to be lawfully present for the duration of their enrollment”. TPS, DED, parole, and deferred action recipients have all received temporary forms of forbearance or permission to enter the United States, have no lawful immigration status, and no legal right to remain in the United States. As a result, they do not meet the standard Congress set to determine whether an alien should be eligible for benefits under the ACA.

Status of the DACA Litigation

On September 13, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled that the Biden administration’s 2022 DACA regulation, like the original 2012 DACA policy created by an Obama administration memorandum, was unlawful and an abuse of executive branch authority. The ruling allows current DACA recipients to maintain and renew their DACA status and work authorization until they expire. DHS, however, is prohibited from approving new (or “initial”) DACA applications. The Fifth Circuit is currently reviewing the case against DACA — but the court’s prior ruling on the unlawfulness of the 2012 DACA memorandum suggests that the court is likely to reject the Biden administration’s arguments that the program is now somehow legal. Experts expect the case to make its way to the Supreme Court for a final resolution.

End Note

1 The Obama administration, through issuance of a three-page policy memorandum, created the DACA program on June 15, 2012. DACA provides immigration benefits, including employment authorization and forbearance from deportation, to certain aliens who are in the United States illegally. In addition to other eligibility criteria, beneficiaries must have been under the age of 31 on or before June 15, 2012 and have entered United States prior to 2007, thus the DACA-eligible population is now between the ages of 27 to 43 years old.

https://cis.org/Jacobs/Biden-Administration-Extends-Obamacare-Eligibility-DACA-Regulation

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
    
http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
 
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

USCIS Stats Show Where the Administration’s Focus Is

Hint: It’s on getting ‘inadmissible’ aliens work cards, not worrying about immigrants doing it ‘the right way’

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) publishes so much data it’s often difficult to find anything. But pore over it and you can see where the administration’s real focus is: expediting employment documents for migrants who have no right to be here, not accommodating aliens doing it “the right way” or on helping American workers (both citizens and lawful immigrants) find jobs. If you’re a citizen waiting for your would-be immigrant spouse to complete the paperwork to receive a green card — keep waiting, the administration has more important people to help.

Number of Service-Wide Forms. USCIS publishes a quarterly document captioned “Number of Service-Wide Forms by Quarter, Form Status, and Processing Time”, which is basically a running tally of the applications the agency has received and completed, and the number that remain pending.

At the end of the third quarter of FY 2019, for example, it shows that USCIS had about 330,000 pending asylum applications (Form I-589), about 753,000 pending employment authorization applications (Form I-765), more than 1.5 million Petitions for Alien Relative (Form I-130), and around 35,000 Immigrant Petitions for Alien Workers (Form I-140).

One year later, at the end of the third quarter of FY 2020, the number of asylum applications waiting for adjudication sat near 374,000, there were about 604,000 employment authorization applications, about 1.45 million immediate relative petitions, and just over 47,000 pending I-140s for alien workers.

That was in the depths of the Covid-19 pandemic, and also at a point when illegal entries at the Southwest border had cratered thanks to some combination of global travel shutdowns, Title 42, and the Migrant Protection Protocols (“MPP”, better known as “Remain in Mexico”).

And then President Biden took office, and the situation at the Southwest border changed dramatically.

In FY 2019, President Trump’s last full year in office, Border Patrol agents at the U.S.-Mexico line nabbed 851,508 migrants who had entered the United States illegally. At the time, that was considered a “bad” border year.

In FY 2022, however, Biden’s first full year in office, apprehensions exceeded 2.2 million, and while 1.054 million of those aliens were expelled under Title 42, 1.152 million others were processed under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), instead. Most of them (more than 88.5 percent by my count) were released — despite the fact that the INA requires them all to be detained.

At the time, parole under section 212(d)(5)(A) of the INA was the administration’s preferred release method (and would remain so until a federal judge told the administration to cut it out in March 2023), meaning that hundreds of thousands of aliens were paroled into the United States that fiscal year.

Here’s why that matters: Unlike aliens who are detained, and aliens who are released directly into removal proceedings instead of being paroled, aliens who are paroled can apply for asylum from USCIS, and most importantly, they can apply for work authorization.

Not surprisingly, by the end of the third quarter of FY 2022, USCIS was sitting on more than 505,000 pending asylum applications and more than 1.5 million applications for employment authorization. That was in addition to 1.7 million pending immediate-relative petitions and nearly 74,000 I-140s.

By that point, USCIS had begun breaking down those employment authorization applications by class: 450,580 based on pending asylum applications; 379,034 for aliens with pending adjustment applications; 108,215 recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA); and “all other” — 574,429 pending.

The DACA applications were likely all renewals under that Obama-era “DREAM Act-lite” scheme, but those “all others” included aliens who had been paroled into the country, and in fact those aliens likely made up the lion’s share of those hundreds of thousands of pending “all other” I-765s.

Then, in January 2023, the White House announced two new parole programs for aliens without visas and no right to be in the United States: CHNV Parole, under which up to 30,000 nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela monthly are allowed to fly into the United States directly; and a separate program under which up to 42,000 would-be illegal migrants are allowed to seek parole after scheduling interviews at the Southwest border ports monthly using the CBP One app (which I’ve dubbed the “CBP One app interview scheme”).

Fast forward a year and three months and here’s what USCIS’s pending applications looked like at the end of FY 2023: 1.022 million pending asylum applications; 1.934 million petitions for alien relatives; 61,000 I-140s; and 777,223 “all other” pending employment-authorization applications.

To be clear, the I-130 is the form you — as a U.S. citizen — must file to get your alien spouse a visa to come to the United States, and as the foregoing shows, if you start that process today, you’ll be getting at the end of a mighty long queue.

“Historical National Median Processing Time”. Well, you might think, maybe the Biden administration, appreciating the massive burden that it is placing on USCIS through its parole schemes, has hired a bunch of new processors and adjudicators, and that the completion process and subsequent wait aren’t that bad.

Think again. For that I turn to yet another USCIS document, this one captioned “Historical National Median Processing Time (in Months) for All USCIS Offices for Select Forms By Fiscal Year”.

Unfortunately, I-589 asylum applications are not tracked on that document, but alien relative petitions, I-765 employment authorization applications, and immigrant worker petitions are.

In FY 2019, it took USCIS 8.6 months to adjudicate I-130s, and about 10 days to adjudicate I-140s (assuming petitioners paid the rather pricey premium processing fee — 5.8 months if they didn’t).

The good news for businesses looking to get immigrant visas for their workers is that this 10-day turnaround for premium processing on I-140s has remained surprisingly consistent in the interim — plainly, you get what you pay through the nose for. But it’s the only thing that has.

The wait for an I-130 grew to 10.3 months in FY 2022, and then to 11.8 months in FY 2023. USCIS claims that the wait for an I-130 in the first quarter of FY 2024 actually dropped to 11.1 months, but that’s still longer than the 8.6 months it had been in FY 2019.

The wait time for a non-premium I-140 stretched to 9.3 months in FY 2022 and stood at 6.6 months at the end of the first quarter of FY 2024 — roughly a month longer than in FY 2019.

If you want employment authorization after you have been paroled in on one of these Biden schemes, however, I’ve got good — no great — news. You would have had to wait 6.1 months for a parole-based I-765 in FY 2019, but by FY 2021 (Biden’s first partial year in office), that was down to about 20 days.

That delay ticked up to 1.3 months by FY 2023, but not to worry — in the first quarter of FY 2024, it was down to .9 months, roughly 27 days. Sure, you have no visa and no right to enter the United States, and as the Biden administration recently admitted to Congress, you “are, by definition, inadmissible”, but that doesn’t mean you don’t have a right to work here!

By the way, if you have a pending adjustment application (Form 1-485) and are on your way to a green card through lawful means (current wait time: 9.7 months for a family-based application), you “are, by definition, a sucker”: your I-765 will be delayed about four months before USCIS can accommodate you. Take a number and we’ll call you as soon as we can.

One reason why aliens without visas “are, by definition, inadmissible” is to protect the wages and working conditions of American workers. The Biden administration, however, has abandoned that concept, that is at the core of immigration law, in favor of expediting work cards for parolees, regardless of the effect that it has on American workers, and on those aliens trying to come here “the right way”.

https://cis.org/Arthur/USCIS-Stats-Show-Where-Administrations-Focus

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
    
http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
 
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Migrant who killed his ex with a skewer in front of her children should have been kicked out of the UK TWENTY years ago

A murder victim's family have told of their fury after discovering her killer was an illegal immigrant who should have been deported 20 years ago.

Zimbabwe-born Obert Moyo, 46, had been able to stay in this country despite three previous attacks on women.

He was jailed for life last week with a minimum term of 27 years for stabbing his former partner Perseverance Ncube, 35, through the heart with a foot-long meat skewer in front of her children aged ten and 12.

As he was sentenced, it emerged that jealous Moyo had overstayed on his visa in the early 2000s and went on to commit crimes against women prior to the murder in Salford.

Ms Ncube was an Avon lady known as Percy. Her sister Christine Chiriseri, 28, said the family only discovered the killer was an illegal immigrant after his arrest.

She added: 'I was very angry and upset because all of this tragedy could have been avoided if people had done their jobs properly.

'We all felt very let down by the Home Office and the people who should have made sure he was deported.'

Ms Chiriseri, who is taking care of the children, said: 'I am reeling over everything that has happened.

'I am trying to move on from the whole situation but I still have to process and understand what happened.

'I still feel very angry. It was a short-term relationship and it cost my sister her life.' Moyo, who admitted murder, had been convicted of harassing women in 2007 and 2009, with the latter leading to a six-month sentence.

In 2013, he was jailed for ten years with an extended licence for attacking another ex-partner in Brighton.

The victim was working at a care home when Moyo broke in through a window by unscrewing it and burning it with a blowtorch.

Once inside and armed with numerous weapons including two knives and a screwdriver, he went on to repeatedly punch her, cut her with the knife and strangle her.

He was convicted of wounding with intent, threats to kill and aggravated burglary.

On his release, instead of deporting him as an 'overstayer', the Home Office fitted him with a tag.

The murder trial at Manchester Crown Court heard Moyo failed to tell his probation officer as part of his licence conditions that he had started a new relationship with Ms Ncube, a single mother with jobs as a childminder and a bookkeeper.

Moyo forced his way into Ms Ncube's home on November 10 last year and attacked her in her bedroom before chasing her into the street and stabbing her.

Detective Sergeant Fiona Manning said: 'Percy's family deserves answers as to why this man... was allowed to remain in this country illegally. Had Moyo been deported, Percy's children would still have a mother.'

A Home Office spokesman said: 'The Government is doing everything possible to reduce legal challenges and to increase the numbers of foreign national offenders being removed.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13385279/Migrant-killed-woman-meat-skewer.html

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
    
http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
 
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

Latest Texas Poll Shows Strong Support for Governor’s Border Policies

Nationally, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has taken a lot of heat for his border policies, be it busing migrants to northern cities, criminalizing illegal entries into the state, suing the administration over the president’s border policies, and erecting border barriers at the Rio Grande, but a recent poll from the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas (UT) shows that his stance is playing well in the one place that really matters — with the voters in his state.

That poll was conducted between April 12 and 22 and surveyed 1,200 registered voters in the Lone Star State, with a margin of error of +/- 2.83 percent.

“What Would You Say Is the Most Important Problem ...”. Respondents were asked what the most important problem facing the country today is, and inflation came out on top, the choice of 16 percent of those polled. “The economy” finished third, at 10 percent, meaning that financial concerns combined were viewed as a national problem by more than a quarter of those polled.

Sandwiched between inflation and the economy, however, was “immigration”, the choice of 13 percent of respondents, and directly following the economy was “border security”, at 9 percent. Combined, therefore, immigration and border issues were viewed as the biggest problem facing the country by 22 percent of respondents.

Texas being Texas, the pollsters then asked respondents what the biggest problem facing their state was, and that order above was more than reversed: 20 percent — one-fifth of all respondents — identified immigration as the biggest issue facing Texas, and 19 percent said it was “border security” — 39 percent all told.

The two pocketbook issues — inflation and the economy — were identified as the most important issue facing Texas by just 9 percent and 6 percent of respondents, respectively, for a total of 15 percent.

That itself is remarkable, given that its more than 400 miles between Amarillo (in the panhandle) and the closest point at the Southwest border (in Langtry on the Rio Grande), and hours in driving distance from the border to major metropolitan centers like Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston. And yet, all Texans are all feeling the heat from what’s happening at the international boundary.

Border Concerns. UT then asked respondents their thoughts on whether they deemed the number of migrants attempting to cross the Southwest border “a crisis”, “a very serious problem, but not a crisis”, “a somewhat serious problem”, “not much of a problem”, or a subject on which they didn’t have an opinion.

In response, 48 percent of those polled deemed illegal immigration at the Mexican border a crisis, 23 percent stated that it was a serious problem, 19 percent deemed it a somewhat serious problem, and just 8 percent believed it wasn’t that big of a deal.

Those responses were fairly consistent with polling done two months earlier in February, which indicates that Texans by and large are concerned about the border and that not much the Biden administration has done of late has ameliorated those apprehensions.

More telling, however, was the next question, which asked respondents in each camp whether their concerns were related to one or more of six specific impacts of illegal migration.

In response, 59 percent of those who deemed the border a crisis had concerns about the strains those migrants are having on local resources; 57 percent about their impact of national security; 56 percent about crime; 53 percent their impact on the economy; 36 percent on the effect that they would have on U.S. culture; and 31 percent about the effects on the migrants and their wellbeing.

The ”somewhat concerned” cohort put the wellbeing of the migrants at the top of their list (a 37 percent response), followed by local resources (28 percent), culture (25 percent), crime (23 percent), national security (22 percent), and the economy (21 percent).

Interestingly, both the “not too concerned” and the “not concerned at all” folks were most concerned about the impact those migrants would have on American culture (an 18 percent and 20 percent response, respectively), followed by economic impacts for those who were not too concerned about illegal migration (17 percent) and the impact on the migrants themselves for those who aren’t concerned at all (14 percent).

Those responses deserve a much fuller analysis than I can offer here, but it’s safe to say that the nearly half of Texas voters who believe the border is a full-blown crisis have high levels of anxiety with nearly every negative aspect of illegal immigration.

Proper Federal Response. Respondents were next asked what the federal government should do about illegal immigration, and more than half — 52 percent — strongly supported increasing Border Patrol resources, while 81 percent in total supported such a move to one degree or another (just 13 percent opposed such action).

That was the most popular response, followed by 72 percent who supported increasing the number of immigration judges and other staff; 70 percent who want to penalize businesses that hire unauthorized aliens; 67 percent who want to increase deportations of those already here; 63 percent who want to expand opportunities for aliens to come here legally; an equal percentage (63 percent) who want to expand the Southwest border wall; 57 percent who want to make it harder for “asylum seekers” to obtain temporary legal status here; 56 percent who want to increase resources available for migrants; and just 41 percent who want to send aid to migrant-sending countries.

That latter response to illegal migration, of course, is the basis of the Biden administration’s “root causes” strategy of expanding economic opportunities for would-be illegal migrants in Central America, and in that vein, it should be noted that 46 percent oppose shipping aid abroad to stem illegal migration.

It’s especially curious, however, that exactly equal percentages of respondents support both expanding legal immigration opportunities and “building the wall”, but even more notable is that equal percentages of respondents (29 percent in each case) oppose such action.

Plainly the opinions of Texas voters about what the administration should do to stem the tide of illegal migrants are all over the map, but what’s clear is that they want something done.

That said, when asked which of these options would be most effective, a plurality (19 percent) chose the wall, followed by expanding opportunities for aliens to come legally (16 percent), increasing deportations (13 percent), expanding Border Patrol resources (also 13 percent), and making it harder for asylum seekers to temporarily stay (10 percent).

The “root causes” idea came in dead last, at 5 percent.

Support For Texas’ Border Policies. Finally, respondents were asked whether they supported or opposed various initiatives the state of Texas has taken to secure the Southwest border.

“Deploying additional state police and military resources to the border between Texas and Mexico”—the key component of “Operation Lone Star”, which Abbott implemented beginning in March 2021 — was the most popular among Texas voters in this poll, with 69 percent of respondents in support and 25 percent in opposition.

In second place was “constructing and/or repairing walls or physical barriers on the border between Texas and Mexico”, supported by 65 percent of the respondents in the UT poll, and opposed by 28 percent.

I’ll skip over the third most popular state initiative for a moment to go to the fourth-place finisher, “placing buoys and barbed wire at the Rio Grande River to deter migration”, again part of Lone Star, which was supported by 58 percent of those polled (36 percent of whom opposed).

President Biden is likely not relying on Texas’ 40 electoral votes in November, but this is likely bad news for an administration currently suing the state in federal court for the right to remove both the buoys and portions of the wire in Maverick County (Eagle Pass and its environs).

Next in popularity is “suing the federal government over federal immigration policies”, which enjoys the support of more than half — 54 percent — of Texas voters polled. That is an option the state has definitely chosen with gusto, albeit with mixed results (at best).

“Paying to bus foreign migrants awaiting their asylum hearings to other parts of the country outside Texas”, a policy Abbott implemented beginning in April 2022 to the dismay of the mayors of Washington, D.C., New York City, Chicago, and other “sanctuary” jurisdictions, was supported by just over half, 51 percent, of respondents. On the flip side, just 39 percent of those polled opposed the busing scheme.

The least popular Texas policy polled was “preventing U.S. Border Patrol agents from accessing parts of the Texas-Mexico border”, which a majority (51 percent) opposed and just 31 percent supported.

To the best of my knowledge, the only area the state had barred agents from entering was Shelby Park, in Eagle Pass, and even then only during a Supreme Court showdown over CBP’s right to cut the Maverick County wire in January.

Which brings me to the third most popular Texas state border initiative in the UT poll: “Making it a state crime for an undocumented immigrant to be in Texas in most circumstances”, which actually drew a surprising amount of support given all the folderol nationally — and locally — that has surrounded it.

The initiative in question is Senate Bill 4 (SB 4), which would, inter alia, make it a misdemeanor for an alien to cross the border into Texas illegally. SB 4 was supposed to go into effect on March 1, but thus far the Biden administration has successfully blocked its implementation in federal court.

Despite that fact (or possibly in part because of it) 62 percent of Texas voters in this poll supported the law, compared to just 30 percent who opposed criminalizing illegal status. That 2-to-1 margin likely doesn’t sit well with the Texas Democratic party, which has branded SB 4 a “racist ... anti-immigration law”.

Operation Lone Star and the other state border initiatives described above have cost Texas taxpayers billions of dollars, and yet they still garner widespread support from voters. That’s because, as the UT poll reveals, Texans are uniquely concerned about the implications — on their state and the nation — of insecurity at the U.S.-Mexico line.

https://cis.org/Arthur/Latest-Texas-Poll-Shows-Strong-Support-Governors-Border-Policies

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
    
http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
 
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************