ICYMI: the Architect of the Administration’s Immigration Policies

From separating children from their parents at the United States’ southern border, to making it increasingly difficult for those fleeing harm to seek asylum, to virtually halting refugee resettlement, to supporting legislative initiatives gutting immediate family immigration, to implementing new immigration regulations that would substantially reduce legal immigration by those not already well-educated and well-off, there is one architect leading the construction of the Trump Administration’s immigration policies:  Stephen Miller.

The New York Times  and the Washington Post both recently published in-depth profiles of Stephen Miller.  In case you missed them, you can find the Time‘s article here, and the Post‘s profile here.

Washington Post: Maine’s Labor Shortage Causing Crisis in Elder Care

The Washington Post reports that Maine is the bellwether of a growing national crisis:  as our population ages, the need for elder caregivers and healthcare providers increases, at the same time that our demographics are creating a shrinking workforce.

As the article notes:

The disconnect between Maine’s aging population and its need for young workers to care for that population is expected to be mirrored in states throughout the country over the coming decade, demographic experts say. And that’s especially true in states with populations with fewer immigrants, who are disproportionately represented in many occupations serving the elderly, statistics show.

In Maine, and the nation, unemployment continues to be low (at 3.7% nationwide and 3.2% in Maine).   Immigration is part of the solution.   Refugees and those seeking or granted asylum, and immediate family immigrants who work in every sector of the economy, from manual labor to highly skilled professions, are essential to preventing the acceleration of our country’s and Maine’s demographic decline.

This is not the time to cut legal immigration as the administration aims to do. The recently published final rule on “public charge”   will do just that, by drastically reducing immediate family immigration, and will exacerbate our elder care labor shortage, as this piece in Forbes  notes.

Rather, it’s the time to remake our federal immigration laws to eliminate backlogs and processing delays in order to facilitate immigration, and for Maine to embrace its ability to attract asylum seekers to settle in the state who will revitalize our communities and workforce.

“Public Charge” Rule and Proposed Refugee Cuts Would Cause Steep Drops in Legal Immigration to U.S.

Maine’s July 2019 unemployment rate was 3%, remaining  below 4% for a record 43rd consecutive month.   At the same time, the state’s population continues to age and our workforce continues to shrink, presenting challenges for economic growth.  While Maine’s situation, as pointed out  recently by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, is more dire than the rest of the nation, the entire country will face constraints posed by an aging population and low birth rates.

This is not a time to put new limits on legal immigration.  However, the Trump Administration is doing just that through new rules affecting intending immigrants, and proposed reductions in refugee resettlement.

  • New Public Charge Rule:

On August 14, 2019, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officially issued a final rule  that will result in dramatic reductions in immediate family immigration.   A draft of the rule was released in October 2018,  changing decades of interpretation of the “public charge” ground of inadmissibility.   Despite over 250,000 comments opposing the draft rule, the final rule is substantially the same as the prior version, and is slated to take effect on October 15, 2019. An explanation of the key provisions and their impact can be found in this prior MeBIC post.

While the administration states that the rule will ensure that new immigrants don’t use public benefits, the draft and final rules’ lengthy preambles acknowledge that most immigrants have never received public benefits before immigrating, are ineligible for income support public benefits for their first five years of residency, and in general use benefits at similar or lower  rates than native-born U.S. citizens.   The unstated actual purpose of the rule is to reduce immediate family immigration, bypassing Congress, which has not backed the administration’s legislative efforts to achieve that goal.

Family immigration represents about 66% of all immigrants annually.  Implementation of this rule is likely to halve immigration by immediate family members of U.S. citizens and permanent residents, and will have devastating effects for our aging communities and shrinking workforce.  As explained here, this will result in a substantial reduction of new immigrants settling in Maine, when the state needs newcomers to stem the challenges resulting from its aging workforce and depopulation.

You can find further critiques of the new rule in this Wall Street Journal  editorial  and this commentary from the Cato Institute.   This op-ed in the Portland Press Herald by MeBIC Board Member David Barber (in response to aspects of the proposed version of the rule, all of which remain in the final rule)  is a reminder that new immigrants, regardless modest backgrounds and means, have long contributed to the fabric of the nation and will continue to do so in the future.

As of August 16, 2019, four lawsuits had been filed in the federal courts challenging the legality of the new rule and requesting that the government be enjoined from implementing it.  The State of Maine is a plaintiff in one of the lawsuits; you can read that complaint here.

  • Cuts to Refugee Admissions in FY 2020

Annual refugee resettlement ceilings, set each year by the President, have been slashed from former President Obama’s 110,000 number in FY 2017 to only 30,000 in FY 2019.   For FY 2020, the administration is reportedly considering cutting refugee admissions to between zero and 10,000.  This would be a complete abdication of our nation’s legal and moral obligations to offer protection to refugees at a time when there are a record 25.9 million  individuals worldwide who have been forced to flee their home countries.

In addition, it is economically short-sighted.   In Maine, refugee admissions are a fraction of what they were in FY 2016, when more than 650 refugees were resettled in the state.  As of July 31, 2019, Maine had received 131 refugees for resettlement, with only two months remaining in this fiscal year.

Together, refugees and immediate family members of U.S. citizens and permanent residents comprise the bulk of immigrants making Maine their new home each year.

Further cuts to refugee admissions, combined with cuts to family immigration as a result of the public charge rule, would result in approximately 1000 fewer immigrants settling annually in Maine compared to FY 2016 numbers, likely leading to net population loss in the state. 

The administration states it supports legal immigration.  Its actions speak to the contrary, and if implemented, will damage Maine’s communities and economy, as well as the nation’s.



Poll Shows Increased Bipartisan Support for Central Americans Seeking Asylum at the Southern Border

A Gallup poll conducted in July 2019 showed majority support for allowing Central Americans  at the United States’ southern border into the U.S. to seek asylum.

Overall, 57% of respondents favored admitting the asylum seekers, up from 51% in December 2018.   Republican support for admitting the asylum seekers increased by 10 percentage points, while Independent support grew by 6 points.  Regardless of political affiliation, 75% of respondents felt that the situation on the border was a crisis or a major problem needing resolution.

You can see the poll results here.

Tapping into Maine’s Immigrant Talent Pool – Hiring Do’s and Don’ts

Maine employers are starved for workers as low unemployment persists in the state.

Yet employers sometimes cut themselves off from immigrants in the workforce through errors made in job postings, during interviews, when communicating job offers, and, after hiring qualified candidates, during the I-9 employment verification process.

These mistakes may not only cost an employer a talented potential employee, but may also run afoul of federal nondiscrimination and employer sanctions laws.

MeBIC has created a two-page primer on hiring “do’s and don’ts”.   This resource may help Maine’s employers tap into the broadest possible applicant pool, and avoid legal errors.