Jeffrey B. Banke/Shutterstock
Last week, federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents raided 98 7-Eleven stores throughout the US, arresting 21 people, including undocumented workers and franchise owners who were caught employing them. The point of the raids was not so much the arrests themselves, but rather a show of force intended to scare employers away from employing undocumented immigrant workers by demonstrating that the federal government was serious about cracking down on them, New York Times reporter Natalie Kitroeff noted earlier this week:
[A]ccording to law enforcement officials and experts with differing views of the immigration debate, a primary goal of such raids is to dissuade those working illegally from showing up for their jobs — and to warn prospective migrants that even if they make it across the border, they may end up being captured at work. Targeting 7-Eleven, a mainstay in working-class communities from North Carolina to California, seems to have conveyed the intended message.
“It’s causing a lot of panic,” said Oscar Renteria, the owner of Renteria Vineyard Management, which employs about 180 farmworkers who are now pruning grapevines in the Napa Valley. When word of the raids spread, he received a frenzy of emails from his supervisors asking him what to do if immigration officers showed up at the fields. One sent a notice to farmhands warning them to stay away from 7-Eleven stores in the area.
Employers in Northern California, in particular, are expected to be the targets of ICE’s next round of raids, the San Francisco Chronicle reported on Wednesday, in what has been described as retaliation against the wave of “sanctuary” laws passed by numerous localities and the state of California limiting the degree to which local authorities can cooperate with federal agents in immigration enforcement. Another law passed last fall bars employers in the state from voluntarily allowing ICE agents onsite to conduct immigration inspections or to access employee records without a warrant or court order.
Protesters at a recent pro-DACA demonstration (AhXiong/Shutterstock.com)
Late on Tuesday, a federal judge in California issued an injunction blocking US President Donald Trump’s order winding down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program put in place by his predecessor Barack Obama to protect undocumented immigrants who were brought into the US as children, CNN reported on Wednesday:
Judge William Alsup also said the administration must resume receiving DACA renewal applications. But the ruling is limited — the administration does not need to process applications for those who have never before received DACA protections, he said. …
The ruling came in a challenge to the Department of Homeland Security brought by the University of California and others. In his 49-page ruling, Alsup said “plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the rescission was arbitrary and capricious” and must be set aside under the federal Administrative Procedures Act. The judge said a nationwide injunction was “appropriate” because “our country has a strong interest in the uniform application of immigration law and policy.”
The DACA program, which is based on the principle of prosecutorial discretion, was enacted in 2012 and has benefited some 800,000 individuals under 31 who arrived in the country before the age of 16, have lived in the US continuously since 2007, and are in school or have graduated. In total, up to 1.1 million so-called “dreamers” were eligible for the program, though not all who were eligible applied—potentially out of fear of “outing” themselves to the federal government as undocumented.
Trump, who campaigned on a pledge to drastically reduce legal and illegal immigration and to hasten the deportation of undocumented immigrants, ordered the DACA program canceled last September, giving Congress until March to find a legislative solution or the administration would begin phasing out its protections. Talks over a deal have stalled over disagreements between Democrats and Republicans over whether to pair it with funding for Trump’s proposed wall along the US-Mexico border. The Trump administration intends to fight Alsup’s injunction, but the court battle could drag on for years. The upshot, the Washington Post explains, is that DACA beneficiaries remain uncertain of their future status unless and until Congress acts.
Roughly 40 percent of expatriate professionals working in Japan say they feel discriminated against at work on account of their nationality or gender, Chisato Tanaka writes for the Japan Times, citing a recent survey by Adecco Ltd.:
Responding to a multiple-answer question on what they do not like about working in Japan, 43 percent cited gender inequality. Around 40 percent said they have trouble with indirect or nonverbal communication with colleagues.
Asked how they see their Japanese colleagues’ performance, 80 percent said their Japanese peers are precise in their work. But 72 percent complained that there were too many pointless meetings. … According to the survey, 47 percent of respondents also felt they are not given equal opportunities compared with their Japanese colleagues.
Nonetheless, the survey found that 77 percent of respondents were satisfied with their current work conditions and 88 percent wanted to keep working in Japan.
China has begun issuing a new form of fast-track, extended-stay visa for recipients of its “Certificate for Foreign High-end Talent,” the South China Morning Post reported last Thursday. The five- and ten-year multiple-entry visas are free, can be processed in as little as one day, and are also available to the spouses and children of certified “high-end” foreign talent. This marks a noteworthy departure from the country’s otherwise very tight controls on immigration and foreign workers:
According to government guidelines, high-end foreigners also refer to, among others, Nobel Prize winners, chief or deputy editors in Chinese state media, foreign coaches and players in national and provincial sports teams, postdoctoral students from world-class universities outside China, and foreigners who earn at least six times the average annual wage in China. The average annual income in Beijing in 2016 was 92,477 yuan (US$14,220), according to official statistics.
The visas are part of a top-down drive to make China a more attractive place to work and stay. In February 2016, the central government relaxed the country’s green card rules, extending eligibility for permanent residency to foreigners working in broader fields than just government departments or laboratories involved in “key national projects”.
The US Department of Homeland Security issued a proposed regulatory change on Thursday that would take away the right of spouses of H-1B guest workers who are seeking employment-based lawful permanent resident status to work legally while awaiting their green cards, the Wall Street Journal reports.
In 2015, the Obama administration introduced a program allowing these holders of H-4 visas (the visa granted to spouses of workers on H-1Bs so that they can live together in the United States) to obtain legal authorization to work. In a notice of intent to propose a rule next year, the department says it is proposing “to remove from its regulations certain H-4 spouses of H-1B nonimmigrants as a class of aliens eligible for employment authorization.”
The notice cites the executive order President Donald Trump issued in April, titled “Buy American, Hire American,” which called on the departments of Labor, Justice, Homeland Security and State to crack down on the abuse of guest worker visa programs like the H-1B and H-4, and to amend procedures for allocating H-1B visas that award them based on merit rather than through a lottery.
Opponents of the Obama administration’s rule letting H-4 spouses work contend that it was an act of executive overreach (and are challenging it in court on that basis); the Trump administration “appears to be signaling that it intends to overturn it rather than defend it,” the Journal reports. Critics also say the previous administration did not do enough to ensure that H-4B holders did not displace American workers.
An agreement reached before dawn on Friday in the first phase of Brexit talks between the UK and the European Union will preserve the rights of EU citizens currently living, working, and studying in the UK, as well as their British counterparts in Europe, Rob Moss reports at Personnel Today:
Theresa May said that EU citizens living in the UK would have their rights “enshrined in UK law and enforced by British courts”. But the agreement, published this morning, says the European Court of Justice will continue to have a role in overseeing their rights for eight years after Brexit – until March 2027. Guarantees will also apply to UK citizens living in other EU countries. …
There are around three million EU citizens living and working in the UK. The joint report states that the objective of the UK’s Brexit agreement is to provide “reciprocal protection for Union and UK citizens, to enable the effective exercise of rights derived from Union law and based on past life choices, where those citizens have exercised free movement rights” by the time of the UK’s withdrawal.
That EU citizens in the UK (and vice versa) would be granted the right to stay has been known since June, and many observers expected the Brexit agreement to include such a provision from the start. What remained uncertain was when these protections would be cut off: Originally, the government had proposed to limit eligibility for “settled” status to those living in the UK on the day the Brexit process was triggered (March 29, 2017), but May left open the possibility of changing it to the day Britain leaves the EU in 2019. Friday’s agreement appears to reflect the EU’s preference of the later date.
The Trump administration’s controversial travel ban, which indefinitely bars most travelers and immigrants from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen from entering the United States, can be implemented in its current form while pending legal challenges to it are resolved, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday. According to the Washington Post, “in an unsigned opinion Monday that did not disclose the court’s reasoning, the justices lifted the injunctions” against the ban put in place by two federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland:
The justices said they expected the federal judges reviewing challenges to the order — based on what challengers say are Trump’s animus toward Muslims and lack of authority under immigration laws — to handle the cases with “appropriate dispatch.”’ … The orders from the two district judges will be reviewed this week. A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is set to consider the Hawaii case Wednesday, and the entire U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond will consider the Maryland judge’s decision Friday.
Monday’s ruling does not mean the ban will survive its ongoing court battles, but it does suggest that if the federal judges do attempt to knock it down, the administration will petition the Supreme Court for a reversal of their rulings and may win that case.