Judge’s ruling protects migrant shelter on US-Mexico border and accuses Texas of harassment

McALLEN, Texas (AP) — A judge blasted efforts by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to shutter one of the oldest and largest migrant shelters on the U.S.-Mexico border in a scathing ruling Tuesday, accusing the Republican of “outrageous” conduct over his claims that the shelter encourages migrants to enter the country illegally. Judge Francisco X. Dominguez ruled that Paxton’s attempts to enforce a subpoena for records of migrants who have been served at Annunciation House in the last few years violated the El Paso shelter’s constitutional rights. His ruling prevents Paxton from seeking the records and protects the shelter from what Dominguez called “harassment and overreaching” by Paxton’s office. Paxton’s office did not respond to requests for comment, but the state is expected to appeal. Annunciation House is one of several nonprofit groups that help migrants from which Paxton’s office has sought information in recent months. Team Brownsville, which assists migrants who are dropped off by federal agents in the border city of Brownsville, received a letter demanding documents in May. Paxton is also suing Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley seeking testimony. 0:00 / 55 AP AUDIO: Judge’s ruling protects migrant shelter on US-Mexico border and accuses Texas of harassment AP correspondent Ed Donahue reports Texas’ attorney general is accused of harassment over border issues. ADVERTISEMENT Dominguez wrote that he previously expressed concern that Paxton’s office had not identified which laws Annunciation House was allegedly breaking. RELATED COVERAGE Image Hurricane Beryl roars by Jamaica after killing at least 6 people in the southeast Caribbean Image Mexico eliminated from Copa America as Ecuador earns spot in quarterfinals after 0-0 draw Image Scorching heat in the US Southwest kills three migrants in the desert near the Arizona-Mexico border “The record before this Court makes clear that the Texas Attorney General’s use of the request to examine documents from Annunciation House was a pretext to justify its harassment of Annunciation House employees and the persons seeking refuge,” he wrote. “In fact, the record before the Court now establishes that the Attorney General was seeking evidence of alleged criminal activity all along,” Dominguez went on to say. “This is outrageous and intolerable.” Paxton alleged that by providing shelter to migrants regardless of their legal status, Annunciation House was facilitating illegal immigration and human smuggling, and operating a stash house. ADVERTISEMENT State officials visited the El Paso shelter in early February demanding immediate access to records — including medical and immigration documents — of migrants who had received services there since 2022. Officials from Annunciation House, a Catholic nonprofit that oversees a network of shelters, said they were willing to comply but needed time to determine what they could legally share without violating their clients’ constitutional rights. Investigators who sought to access records the day after requesting entry were not allowed inside the shelter. Jerry Wesevich, the attorney representing Annunciation House, said that corporations under the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Wesevich expressed relief after the ruling and said it could impact other organizations. He also questioned why Paxton wanted to close the shelter. “All that’s going to mean is more people in El Paso streets. Who does that help? All it does is provide a narrative of chaos on the border, which is a narrative that some people politically want to promote,” Wesevich said. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

USCIS Updates Customer Service and Safe Address Procedures for Individuals Protected Under Confidentiality Provisions

We have implemented provisions in the USCIS Policy Manual that provide guidance on customer service and safe address procedures for individuals protected under 8 U.S.C. 1367. The confidentiality provisions at 8 U.S.C. 1367 protect information about individuals who have pending or approved victim-based immigration relief, specifically relief under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), such as Form I-360 VAWA self-petitions and Form I-751 waivers based on battery or extreme cruelty, T nonimmigrant status applications or U nonimmigrant status petitions, and their derivatives and beneficiaries. USCIS has established specific procedures to improve access to information and customer service for these protected individuals through the USCIS Contact Center, while continuing to protect their privacy and follow statutory confidentiality provisions. Protected individuals may now submit inquiries or request a service by calling the USCIS Contact Center or sending a secure message from their USCIS online account. The USCIS Contact Center will ask specific questions to verify a caller’s identity before providing services. See the “Inquiries for VAWA, T, and U Filings (Including Form I-751 Abuse Waivers)” section of our Contact Us webpage for important information. Callers should have documents ready, if possible, for reference when sending a secure message and during the call: A receipt notice for each form they are asking about; and A copy of relevant pending or approved applications or petitions. This expansion currently applies to protected individuals only. Their attorneys and representatives must continue to use the dedicated VAWA/T/U email hotlines for customer service inquiries. To support more efficient processing and avoid duplicate work, we ask attorneys and representatives to avoid submitting the same requests your clients are submitting through the USCIS Contact Center. We also updated guidance on mailing address procedures for protected individuals. These procedures support protected individuals receiving correspondence from USCIS in a timely manner and ensure they can control which address USCIS uses to mail correspondence related to their benefit requests. This update provides guidance to the public and USCIS employees on mailing address and adjudication procedures for all forms filed by protected individuals. This guidance is currently effective. Find the updated guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual - Volume 1, Part A, Chapter 7, Section E.

Immigration Proponents Get Boost From End to Chevron Doctrine

Attorneys expect level playing field to challenge visa denials Impact on broad employment eligibility programs still unclear In Focus: Chevron, Loper & Agency Deference (Bloomberg Law subscription) The US Supreme Court’s decision curtailing federal agencies’ leeway to interpret ambiguous laws will benefit many immigrants and businesses stymied in efforts to obtain employment-based visas and green cards, immigration lawyers said. The justices’ elimination of the Chevron doctrine has been a long-term goal of conservatives aiming to undermine the power of the federal bureaucracy. The full implications of the June 28 decision—which says courts don’t have to defer to an agency’s stance on unclear laws—will become more apparent as advocates and opponents file new litigation challenging regulations amid the altered legal regime. While scholars have said the ruling could hamstring efforts to address large-scale problems like pollution or consumer fraud, the dismantling of Chevron was welcomed by many in the immigration bar who see it as a win for immigrants and a potential hurdle for immigration restrictions. That’s because agencies like US Citizenship and Immigration Services have typically been given the benefit of the doubt by courts in defending challenges to visa denials, they said. “It’s going to be great for litigators in our space,” said Marty Robles-Avila, senior counsel at BAL Immigration Law. “It’s a net gain for non-citizens and those in the immigration community.” Still, others predict that there could be immigration “winners and losers” in a post-Chevron world, said Cyrus Mehta, managing partner of Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC. The decision could weaken the standing of large programs that are based on an agency interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act—like Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals—when explicit authorization doesn’t exist in a federal statute, he said. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

SCOTUS ruling shifts H-1B visa landscape

The H-1B visa program could face more legal challenges from employers disputing denials, following a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that restricts federal power and increases pressure on Congress to reform the program. After he took office in 2017, then-President Donald Trump's decision to crack down on the H-1B visa program resulted in 1 in 5 visa denials, representing a dramatic increase. This rise in denials was largely due to federal agencies' broad powers to interpret regulations, which stems from a 1984 ruling known as the Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council decision. However, in a recent 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court has overturned Chevron, a decision that could change federal agencies' broad authority to interpret and set regulations. This landmark decision has significant implications for immigration policy, particularly the H-1B visa program. With this ruling, courts are no longer obligated to defer to interpretations of the law by federal agencies -- including U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which administers the H-1B program. The Chevron case gave judicial deference to federal agencies in their interpretation of unclear laws. Carl Shusterman, a Los Angeles-based immigration attorney, said the recent decision to overturn Chevron is "a big positive" for immigration because federal agencies write restrictive regulations that don't comply with the law. He added, "It'll just make it a lot easier to challenge these immigration denials," although he also remains critical of the Supreme Court's decision for its potential impact on areas such as environmental rules. While the Chevron decision could make it harder for future administrations to unilaterally tighten H-1B visa regulations, it also introduces new complexities into the immigration system. As courts take on a more significant role in interpreting immigration laws, the operation of the H-1B visa program could see more challenges, especially regarding individual denials. A challenge to H-1B visa regs The U.S. government issues 85,000 new H-1B visas annually through a lottery program. While the Chevron decision doesn't restrict the ability of agencies to issue regulations, it changes how these regulations can be challenged. It is really hard to say whether this is a positive or negative. Sharvari Dalal-Dheini Director of government relations, American Immigration Lawyers Association Sharvari Dalal-Dheini, director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said that when there is a challenge, the interpretation of the law will be left up to the courts. "It is really hard to say whether this is a positive or negative," Dalal-Dheini said of the Chevron decision. It's a positive for employers that are challenging individual denials, but it's a negative if the White House wants to improve the program. "Their ability to improve their program will be under much higher scrutiny," she added. The Chevron decision will put more pressure on the White House to seek new laws in Congress. Agencies will no longer be able to interpret the law as time passes and immigration reforms are needed, Dalal-Dheini said. The people who will benefit the most from the Chevron decision are those who bring specific claims over denials, she said. One area that could see legal challenges is around specialty occupation denials, which require employers to prove the direct relevance of a college degree to a job. The problem is that hundreds of courts might be making decisions on these rules, meaning interpretation can vary, Dalal-Dheini said. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

US-Mexico border crossings fall to three-year low after Biden’s executive order

Undocumented crossings at the US’s southern border have fallen to a three-year low, marking the lowest in Joe Biden’s presidency just a short time after he signed a controversial executive order limiting immigration there in June. The latest data from the federal Customs and Border Patrol obtained by CBS News is the most recent since Biden signed his executive order – and comes as the president is accused of failing to address concerns about the amount of people crossing into the US without permission. About 84,000 people crossed into the US without documentation in June, the lowest monthly total since Biden assumed office in January 2021, CBS reported. That reduction forms part of a broader trend that has seen the number of people who have entered the US without authorization steadily decrease since February, when 141,000 people were apprehended at the border. Biden’s executive order restricts asylum seekers from crossing the southern border when a daily limit of crossings has been exceeded. Biden signed the order after Republicans blocked a bipartisan immigration bill that was set to limit asylum. “We must face a simple truth,” Biden said when the order was signed. “To protect America as a land that welcomes immigrants, we must first secure the border and secure it now.” The mandate received condemnation from Democrats, particularly progressives and immigration advocates, who viewed it as punitive and reminiscent of the Donald Trump White House’s previous asylum ban. “It violates fundamental American values of who we say we are – and puts people in danger,” said Vanessa Cárdenas, the executive director of America’s Voice, an immigration advocacy organization. “It’s part of a trap that the Democrats are falling into – they’re buying the narrative the right is pushing on immigration.” Biden’s action came amid polling that showed that a majority of registered voters don’t approve of his handling of immigration, a top-ranking issue in the 2024 presidential election. The Democrat’s executive order has done little to persuade disgruntled voters, according to a recent poll from Monmouth University. Biden has also faced consistent criticism from Republicans for failing to address record numbers of people arriving in the US through its border with Mexico. During Thursday’s presidential debate, Trump – the presumptive Republican nominee – repeatedly brought up the murder and assault of 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray, who was killed in Texas by two Venezuelan men who reportedly entered the country illegally. “There have been many young women murdered by the same people he allows to come across our border,” Trump said, as Reuters reported. “These killers are coming into our country and they are raping and killing women. And it’s a terrible thing.” For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

US to pay for flights to help Panama remove migrants who may be heading north

WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States is going to pay for flights and offer other help to Panama to remove migrants under an agreement signed Monday, as the Central American country’s new president has vowed to shut down the treacherous Darien Gap used by people traveling north to the United States. The memorandum of understanding was signed during an official visit headed by Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to Panama for the inauguration Monday of José Raúl Mulino, the country’s new president. The deal is “designed to jointly reduce the number of migrants being cruelly smuggled through the Darien, usually en route to the United States,” National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson said in a statement. The efforts to send some migrants back to their homelands “will help deter irregular migration in the region and at our southern border, and halt the enrichment of malign smuggling networks that prey on vulnerable migrants,” she said. ADVERTISEMENT “Irregular migration is a regional challenge that requires a regional response,” Mayorkas said in a statement. Shortly after Mulino’s inauguration, the Panamanian government released a statement saying Mayorkas had signed an agreement with Panama’s Foreign Affairs Minister Javier Martínez-Acha in which the U.S. government committed to covering the cost of repatriation of migrants who enter Panama illegally through the Darien. RELATED COVERAGE Image José Raúl Mulino sworn in as Panama’s new president, promises to stop migration through Darien Gap Image Sports betting roundup: England pulls in plenty of action from bettors at Euro 2024 Image American winger Tim Weah’s suspension extended to 2 games for red card against Panama The agreement said the U.S. would support Panama with equipment, transportation and logistics to send migrants caught illegally entering Panama back to their countries, according to Panama. Mulino, the country’s 65-year-old former security minister and new president, has promised to shut down migration through the jungle-clad and largely lawless border. “I won’t allow Panama to be an open path for thousands of people who enter our country illegally, supported by an international organization related to drug trafficking and human trafficking,” Mulino said during his inauguration speech. ADVERTISEMENT Under the terms of the agreement, U.S. Homeland Security teams on the ground in Panama would help the government there train personnel and build up its own expertise and ability to determine which migrants, under Panama’s immigration laws, could be removed from the country, according to two senior administration officials. They spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity to give details of the agreement that had not yet been made public. For those migrants who are to be removed, the U.S. also would pay for charter flights or commercial airplane tickets for them to return to their home countries. The officials didn’t specify how much money the U.S. would contribute overall to those flights or which countries the migrants would be removed to. The officials said the U.S. would be giving assistance and expertise on how to conduct removals, including helping Panama officials screen migrants who might qualify for protections. But the U.S. is not deciding whom to deport, the officials said. The program would be entirely under Panama’s control, aligning with the country’s immigration laws, and the decisions would be made by that government, the U.S. officials said. They added that Panama already has a repatriation program but that it’s limited. ADVERTISEMENT The agreement comes as Panama’s Darien Gap has become a superhighway of sorts for migrants from across the Southern Hemisphere and beyond who are trying to make it to the United States. The Darien Gap connects Panama and Colombia to the south. More than half a million people traversed the corridor last year and more than 190,000 people have crossed so far in 2024, with most of the migrants hailing from Venezuela, Ecuador, Colombia and China. The agreement comes as the Biden administration has been struggling to show voters during an election year that it has a handle on immigration and border security. Former President Donald Trump, who’s made immigration a key election year issue, has starkly criticized Biden, saying he’s responsible for the problems at the border. ADVERTISEMENT In early June President Joe Biden announced a new measure to cut off access to asylum when the number of people arriving at the southern border reaches a certain number. Homeland Security officials have credited those restrictions with cutting the number of people encountered by Border Patrol by 40% since they were enacted. The administration has also moved to allow certain U.S. citizens’ spouses without legal status to apply for permanent residency and eventually citizenship without having to first depart the country. The action by Biden, a Democrat, could affect upwards of half a million immigrants. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Waivers for DACA Recipients Open Narrow Path for Work Relief (1)

Administration promotes pathway to employment-based visas Used sparingly because of unpredictable approval process An initiative by the Biden administration to steer undocumented young people with college degrees to long-term employment-based visas may offer relief to only a narrow group of Dreamers. The policy, rolled out alongside an ambitious new parole plan for undocumented spouses of US citizens, puts new emphasis on waivers for immigrants whose presence would serve the national interest. It could also offer applicants and their employers more certainty of their ability to live and work in the US, an outcome that large tech firms like Microsoft and Alphabet Inc. have urged for all recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival protections, the program for undocumented people who arrived in the US as children. The administration’s option is known as a “D-3" waiver—so-called because of the relevant provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act—which exempts immigrants from penalties that require them to leave the country for extended periods because of unlawful presence in the US. It’s been used sparingly by applicants, however, because of long wait times and unpredictable consular decisions. The June 18 announcement was welcomed by immigration advocates who said it puts a bigger spotlight on the waivers both for immigrants and consular officers. That’s significant, as the DACA program faces an uncertain future and thousands of young undocumented people graduate college without access to those protections. “This administration is expressly saying that bringing in highly-skilled professionals, workers with a college degree obtained in the United States, that is a significant US government interest,” said Arturo Castellanos-Canales, policy and advocacy manager at the National Immigration Forum. But attorneys say the waivers may not be significantly more attractive to potential recipients without additional changes to the application process, such as the ability to apply within the US. “If somebody is forced to leave the country without a waiver in their pocket, I don’t think anyone is using this option,” said Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland & Knight LLP. Limited Work Visas The waiver process requires that both US Customs and Border Protection and the State Department sign-off on a request for an exemption to inadmissability bars. But an applicant must travel outside the country to seek visa approval at a US consulate. That requirement to travel outside the country without assurances of a waiver approval or the chance of a long wait time for processing is a serious barrier, said Daniel Pierce, a partner at Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy LLP. “If you’re an employee who can already work in the United States, you don’t really want to go abroad for six months with an uncertain outcome,” he said. “If you’re an employer, you don’t necessarily want to lose access to your worker.” The most likely visa option for those employed in the private sector is an H-1B specialty occupation visa, Pierce said, but less than one in five workers registered by employers were selected in the annual lottery for the visas this spring. Although the H-1B offers a pathway to eventual permanent residency, it would also tie workers to a single employer, unlike the unrestricted employment authorization provided under programs like DACA or Temporary Protected Status. “There are some kernels of good ideas here. What really matters is how this gets implemented,” Pierce said. A State Department spokesperson said that the Department of Homeland Security may waive certain ineligibilities for visa applicants based on a recommendation from a consular officer following an interview. Applicants therefore can’t seek waiver recommendations while in the US. “Ultimately, DHS remains responsible for approving waiver requests,” the spokesperson said. US Customs and Border Protection didn’t respond to a request for comment. More Certainty But for immigrants whose company is willing to sponsor them for an employment-based green card, the waiver option could insulate them against DACA going away because of a court decision or change in administration, said Dan Berger, a partner at Curran, Berger & Kludt Immigration Law. “We work with a lot of professionals who have spent their lives and careers planning around the uncertainty of an election,” he said. “Once they’re on a temporary visa status, they don’t have to worry about that.” Tech giants like Microsoft have pushed for lawmakers to pass permanent relief for DACA recipients. The company didn’t comment on whether it would support employees using the waiver process. Jack Chen, Microsoft’s associate general counsel, said in a post on LinkedIn that the Biden administration’s actions on behalf of undocumented spouses of US citizens and Dreamers are “much needed options for people who have only known the U.S. as home.” The administration plans to issue an update to the foreign affairs manual, which consular officials rely on in reviewing visa decisions, but it’s not clear if new regulations will be issued as well. Miriam Feldblum, executive director of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, said the waiver process could be further bolstered by making clear that there would be a presumption of approval for applicants who met criteria, identifying what documentation is required of applicants, and expediting decisions at consular offices. There are roughly 400,000 undocumented students enrolled in US higher education institutions, according to the alliance, but the share of those eligible for DACA protections continues to decline. Despite serious questions over details of the waivers, it’s the first significant relief extended to Dreamers since the memorandum creating Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals more than a decade ago, said Andrea Rathbone Ramos, a DACA recipient and digital communications specialist at the American Immigration Council. “If this is their only way to be able to work legally in the country, they’ll do it,” she said. (Updated with comment from Department of State. ) For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

On nearly every topic, Trump brings it back to the border

From the economy to insulin to childcare to abortion, former President Trump repeatedly turned the conversation to the border during Thursday's debate — centering an issue that has proven to be one of President Biden's most vulnerable. Why it matters: Historic levels of migration at the U.S.-Mexico border have become one of the top issues this election cycle. Trump has made a border crackdown a focus of all three of his presidential campaigns, while the issue has been one of Biden's biggest vulnerabilities with back-to-back record years of illegal border crossings on his watch. Trump also used the immigration issue to hit Biden over verbal stumbles, saying, "I don't know what he said at the end of that sentence, I don't think he knows what he said either." What they're saying: Trump repeatedly brought up the issue of crimes committed by migrants, claiming migrants are "killing our citizens at a level that we've never seen." He said he recently spoke to the mother of girl who was recently killed, adding "We had the safest border in the history of our country. All he had to do was leave it." Trump accused Biden of undoing much of his restrictive border policies "just because I approved it, which is crazy," saying Biden has "killed so many people at our border." There have been some recent, high-profile cases of unauthorized immigrants committing violent crimes, but studies have shown immigrants are less likely to commit crimes compared to those born in the U.S. Zoom in: Trump said that people coming across the border were taking "Black jobs and they're taking Hispanic jobs." When responding to whether he would block abortion medication, he added "there have been many young women murdered by the same people he allows to come across our border." The other side: Biden touted a bipartisan border deal that Republicans blocked in the Senate — at Trump's urging — and slammed Trump for "separating babies from their mothers, putting them in cages." Biden claimed the Border Patrol Union endorsed him and his position. While the group did endorse the bipartisan border deal, they have not endorsed Biden himself — and backed Trump in 2016 and 2020. Catch up quick: Biden has made two major immigration moves this month, giving him ammunition to push back on Trump's attacks. He issued a harsh executive order that allows border officials to quickly turn back migrants who illegally cross the border — without a chance at asylum — when border crossings meet a certain threshold. Border numbers have fallen significantly in the weeks following the action. Biden also made a path to citizenship easier for hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants who have been in the country for years and are married to U.S. citizens. The other side: Trump has long campaigned on a harsh approach to immigration. He has promised to execute mass deportations of people who are in the U.S. without legal status. He would also seek to end birthright citizenship, screen prospective immigrants for "Marxist" ideologies and use the military to target drug smugglers. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Immigration Is a Central Issue for Voters. It Was Lost in Thursday’s Debate.

President Joe Biden only had a few minutes to talk about immigration on the debate stage Thursday, but what he said was muddled. Biden did call back to controversy during Trump’s presidency over family separation and the Senate bipartisan border deal that failed partly due to Trump’s influence. “He was taking, separating babies from their mothers, putting them in cages, making sure their families were separated. That’s not the right way to go,” Biden said at one point. “When we had that deal done, he went and he called his Republican colleagues, said, ‘Don’t do it. It’s gonna hurt me politically,’” he said about the Senate bill. But other points seemed to get lost. He tried to take a jab at Trump for blaming undocumented immigrants for rape while promoting anti-abortion policies, but the point was confusing. He claimed the Border Patrol endorsed him (which they, emphatically, did not) when he likely meant they endorsed the bipartisan Senate deal, and he didn’t draw back the conversation to discuss the benefit of immigrants to the U.S. economy, which is a common Democratic talking point. However, one Democratic consultant said that despite flubs, panic over Biden’s immigration messaging is premature. “Did you not know he was 81 years old? That’s not new information. Like, the guy’s been old since before he got elected the first time,” they said. “It’s also not new information that Trump is a crazy liar; that’s why I don’t think it changes anything.” They said that debates don’t change public opinion that much. Campaigns are long and come down to much more than how a candidate talks on TV, they said. “Let the man be old and have better policy than the crazy, deranged, authoritarian lunatic,” they said. On social media, many Democrats stayed quiet about Biden’s performance on an issue that’s top of mind for voters, and instead redirected the focus to attacking former President Donald Trump. “Donald Trump still proudly uses the language that inspired a shooter to drive 10 hours to my community to murder migrants,” Rep. Veronica Escobar, a Biden campaign co-chair, said on X. “It’s vile. It’s unacceptable. It’s deadly.” “Let’s be clear: Donald Trump has been the worst President for immigrants and Latinos in decades,” Rep. Robert Garcia, who attended the debate with Biden, said on X. There were only a few questions focused on immigration on the stage, but Trump repeatedly attacked immigrants during unrelated segments and drew back the conversation to border security. On actual policy, both candidates didn’t contribute many details. “I think the brief moment that immigration was discussed in this debate, I don’t think either one of them were very clear,” said Douglas Rivlin, senior director of communications for the pro-immigration reform group America’s Voice. “I don’t know whether the Biden strategy is just to talk about immigration as little as possible, but I think that’s the wrong strategy.” Democrats seem to have accepted that the best thing for Biden is really to highlight the worst things from Trump. Rivlin wanted much more pressure on Trump’s “mass deportation” claim, which was asked about, but Trump didn’t end up addressing it. “The strategy ought to be to lean in and push back on what is really a very extreme position,” he said. The Democratic strategist was likewise disappointed that CNN didn’t pressure Trump more on that point. “I thought the CNN moderators did a very poor job of forcing Trump to actually answer questions,” they said. “But Trump never answers questions because he’s afraid to, and I think that came through tonight.” Trump, for his part, mostly focused on crimes committed by undocumented immigrants. “We call it migrant crime. I call it Biden migrant crime. They’re killing our citizens at a level that we’ve never seen before,” he said. Republicans felt better about how Trump handled the issue. Texas Rep. Chip Roy said Biden was “unintelligible” and didn’t feel Trump dodging the question on mass deportation was a negative. “Trump didn’t take the bait and focused on the indefensible open-borders killing Americans,” Roy said in a text message. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Biden snaps at Trump over immigration lies

President Biden lost his patience with former President Trump’s falsehoods on immigration in Thursday’s debate, after trying to direct the topic toward the failed bipartisan Senate border deal. “Everything he says is a lie,” Biden said during the event held by CNN in Atlanta. “Every single one.” Biden’s pivot came as Trump repeated a litany of falsehoods on immigration, based on the idea that the Biden administration purposefully opened the border. “He decided to open up our border, open up our country to people that are from prisons, people that are from mental institutions, insane asylum, terrorists,” Trump said. Trump also leaned into making a link between crime and immigration — a key claim for Republicans ahead of November’s election — making a generalized assessment of immigration based on isolated crimes. Most research has shown the presence of immigrants tends to lower crime rates because immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than native-born citizens. A Cato Institute paper published Wednesday confirmed prior research that immigrants on average commit fewer murders than natural-born citizens. The paper analyzed Texas Department of Public Safety data and found the conviction rate for immigrants lacking documentation in the state was lower than the rate for natural-born citizens every year from 2013 to 2022. Trump said the United States had become a “rat’s nest” and added that “we have the largest number of terrorists coming into our country right now, all terrorists, all over the world, not just in South America, all over the world,” Trump said. He disparaged Biden’s claim that Congress should act to give the executive greater powers and resources to control the border, arguing that “he didn’t need legislation, because I didn’t have legislation, I said close the border.” Trump also compared migrant living conditions — which he falsely labeled as “luxury hotels” — to conditions for unhoused veterans. “He has killed so many people at our border by allowing all of these people to come in, and it’s a very sad day in America,” Trump said. That’s when Biden lost his patience, delivering one of his strongest lines in a debate that started shaky for the president. “Everything he says is a lie. Every single one,” Biden said. But Biden segued to respond to Trump’s quip about veterans, dropping the immigration topic. Trump, however, did not let the topic go. He raised immigration or the border in response to most other questions. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.

Perez v. Garland - filed June 28, 2024

The offense of attempted lewdness with a child under the age of 14, in violation of Nevada Revised Statutes §§193.330 and 201.230(2), constitutes an attempted sexual abuse of a minor aggravated felony which renders an alien removable. Perez v. Garland - filed June 28, 2024 Cite as 2024 S.O.S. 23-204 Full text click here >http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0724//23-204.