Category: News

USCIS has announced that on November 15, 2019, the cap of 33,000 H-2B non-agricultural seasonal work visas for the first half of FY 2020 (October 1, 2019-March 31, 2020) was reached.  This is more than three weeks earlier than last year.  Petitions subject to the cap with employment start dates prior to April 1, 2020 received after November 15th will be returned to their petitioning employers.

Employers hoping to acquire H-2B visas for non-agricultural seasonal positions that will begin between April 1 and September 30, 2020 can start the filing process on January 2, 2020.  The Office of Foreign Labor Certification will hold a webinar to “Update Stakeholders on the Process for Filing H-2B Applications With a Start Date of April 1, 2020, or Later”  on December 11, 2019.  Details on the webinar with a link for registration can be found here.

H-2B visas are used particularly in Maine’s seasonal hospitality sector. A 30,000 bump in the number of available H-2B visas created by Congress to respond to the shortage of H-2B visas during the second half of FY 2019 expired on September 30, 2019.   Congress should enact a permanent and substantial increase in the number of H-2B visas so that employers can look to the program as one that can be relied on to meet their seasonal labor needs

Maine employers who want details about which workers are cap-exempt,  or who want to check the number of H-2B visa petitions already accepted that count towards the 33,000 visa cap for the second half of FY 2020 (April 1 – Sept. 30, 2020) once that filing window begins can check here.

On November 14, 2019, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposed sweeping and unprecedented changes to how those seeking asylum protection in the U.S. will be treated while pursing their claims.

If the proposed rule change takes effect, it will be another step in the administration’s efforts to turn the U.S. asylum program, created by Congress decades ago, into a farce.  It will also harm the U.S., and Maine’s, economy.

The proposed rule would require asylum seekers who enter the U.S. through border posts to wait a full year after they apply for asylum before they could get a work permit to support themselves.  This is more than double their already long current wait of 180 days.

Even more harsh, the proposed rule would prevent asylum seekers from getting a work permit at all while their asylum applications are in process, if they entered “without inspection”.   The vast majority of asylum seekers entering the U.S. over the southern border enter without inspection because border officials are “metering” entries, forcing asylum seekers to wait months to enter legally.

To be clear, with over a million cases (of all types, not just asylum) pending in the immigration court system, and with hundreds of thousands of asylum cases already filed with the administrative asylum system, getting a decision in an asylum case routinely takes years.   Depriving asylum seekers, who, regardless of how they enter the U.S., have the legal right to apply for asylum under U.S. and international law, of the ability to work and support themselves for a year, or perpetually, while their asylum applications are in process, is effectively a statement that the U.S. does not want those fleeing harm to seek safety from persecution in this country.

The proposed rule acknowledges its economic costs, quantifying the potential lost earnings annually to asylum seekers due to delayed or complete inability to work at an amount ranging from over $1.7 billion to over $4.1 billion annually.

The administration also estimates the proposed rule’s annual effect on businesses:

“(I)f companies are unable to find reasonable labor substitutes for the position the asylum applicant would have filled then $4,461.9 million is the estimated maximum monetized cost of the rule.”

Furthermore, the proposed rule estimates that annual lost federal payroll taxes could be as high as $682.9 million annually.  The rule does not estimate the cost to the economy in foregone spending by asylum seekers in their local economies, nor the impact of lost state and local taxes.

Maine has an acute labor shortage, and needs workers.  Not only is this proposed rule a violation of the U.S.’s international law obligations, it is an economic disaster.   With the administration’s cuts to the refugee resettlement program, resulting in fewer refugees coming to Maine, and other proposals that would slash immediate family immigration, Maine needs asylum seekers to help keep the state’s population and workforce vibrant.

Asylum seekers, such as those who arrived in Portland during the summer of 2019 and who continue to arrive, choose to come to Maine not only because the state has a reputation as welcoming, but also because Maine already has established communities of immigrants from countries such as Angola, Burundi, the DRC, and Rwanda who can help them acclimate to the U.S.   Once they arrive here, asylum seekers want to work, be self-supporting, and to contribute to their new communities in Maine.

This proposed rule, coupled with another proposed rule that would require them to pay $490 for their initial work permits (which currently are free), would deprive asylum seekers of the dignity of being self-supporting, while also depriving Maine’s employers of their talents as employees.

Public comments on this rule will be accepted through January 13, 2020.   MeBIC will submit a comment voicing strong opposition to the proposed rule.  Please contact MeBIC if your business would like to submit a comment as well.

UPDATE:  In response to national advocacy efforts, on December 6, 2019, the government extended the deadline for public comment to December 30, 2019, instead of December 16th.

On November 14, 2019, the Department of Homeland Security issued a proposed rule raising the filing fees on dozens of applications processed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).  The average proposed fee increase is 21%, but many increases are far higher, such as an 83% fee increase to apply for U.S. citizenship, a 79% fee increase in permanent residency applications for those who need to be able to work and travel while their applications are in process, and a 55% increase in Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) renewal fees

The fee increases will make it harder for many people to apply for or keep their legal immigration status.

The proposed rule will raise new barriers, and higher fees, for employers to petition for foreign talent.   Instead of the current $460 fee,  USCIS would charge $860 for an H-2A visa petition for a named agricultural seasonal worker.  To petition for a named H-2B non-agricultural seasonal worker, the fee would increase to $725.  Fees for unnamed workers would decrease slightly from the current fees, but for the first time, USCIS would limit petitions to 25 unnamed  employees.  For example, a farm petitioning for 200 unnamed H-2A workers would have to file eight petitions, at a cost of $3,400 instead of the current $460.

Other employment-based petitions will also see fee increases, and processing changes.   For example, the fees for filing an L-1, O-1, and H-1B  petitions would increase by 77, 55, and 22 percent, respectively.  The rule would also relax the USCIS’s premium processing deadline from 15 calendar days to 15 business days–which the proposed rule acknowledges will cause “lost productivity” for employers.  The fee rule also would require employers with more than 50 or 50% H-1B and L-1 visa employees in the aggregate to pay a $4,000 or $4,500 fee, respectively, for individual employees’ visa extension requests.

Many of Maine’s immigrants are asylum seekers.   The proposed rule would introduce a fee to apply for asylum in the U.S., making the U.S. a global outlier (joined only by Iran, Fiji, and Australia) in requiring those fleeing persecution to pay to seek protection.  Additionally, it would for the first time require that asylum seekers pay for their initial work permits, at a cost of $490, despite the fact that asylum seekers cannot legally work to raise the money to pay the fee.

About two-thirds of Maine’s immigrants gain residency as immediate family members of U.S. citizens and permanent residents.    For those able to apply for their green cards from inside the U.S. who need to be able to work and travel while their applications are in process, the 79% fee increase, to $2,195, plus the 49% increase in the fee for each child under 17, may delay their ability to regularize their status and to work legally in the State.

The proposed rule would eliminate the ability to request a fee waiver for most applications, including asylum applications and asylum seekers’ initial work permits, even where an individual is experiencing real economic hardship that could be cured, for example, by getting a work permit.

Congress long ago decided that USCIS must fund its operations primarily through filing fees rather than with Congressional appropriations.   However, this proposed rule would divert over $200 million of the fees raised by the increases to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), rather than to processing applications for legal immigration status and benefits.  Moreover, the rule does not propose using the fees to add staff so that USCIS can reduce long application processing times and improve service delivery.

Public comments will be accepted until December 16, 2019.  MeBIC will submit comments opposing the proposed rule.

On November 12, 2019, business and civic leaders in Maine spoke out at a press event to urge Congress to act to provide a path to permanent residency for those with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA),  On that date,  the legality of the administration’s rescission of the DACA program was argued in the Supreme Court.  DACA continues now only as a result of lower federal court orders blocking the program’s rescission.

Over 700,000 immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children, including about 200 here in Maine, are part of our nation’s communities and economy.  Many have no memory of living in any other country.  As MeBIC Board member David Barber of Barber Foods/Tyson Foods said, “They’re full members of the communities in every sense. And the only thing they lack is permanent immigration status that will assure their futures here.”

Participating in the event were MeBIC partners CEI and Penobscot Community Health Care, as well as allies including Hospitality Maine, Scholars Strategy Network- University of Maine chapter, the Maine MultiCultural Center, and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland.

DACA holders’ fates are in limbo, awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision.  They don’t know if they will be able to retain their legal protections and work permits, their ability to study, work, and to support themselves. Similarly, their employers do not know if they will soon lose valued employees should the Supreme Court uphold the rescission of the DACA program.  The economic impact if DACA holders lose their status will cost the country dearly, in lost GDP, lost taxes, and in turnover costs for employers.

The House of Representatives has already passed the American Dream and Promise Act, which would provide a path to permanent residency for DACA holders/Dreamers.  It’s time for the Senate to pass, by a veto proof majority, a similar bill.   Doing so is the right thing to do for these individuals, and for the U.S. economy.

The event was covered by the Fox news affiliate in Bangor, the Portland Press Herald, and Maine Public, among others.

Maine’s Department of Labor released preliminary data showing the unemployment rate in October 2019 at 2.8%, a slight decrease from the previous month.

This represents the 46th straight month of unemployment remaining below 4% in Maine.  Twelve Maine counties have rates under 3%, including Sagadahoc County at 1.8%. Cumberland County at 2%, and Hancock, Lincoln, Knox and York Counties at 2.1%.  The resulting workforce shortages are hampering not only growth, but also normal operations in many economic sectors in Maine, including hospitality, elder care, and agriculture.

Nationally, the unemployment rate in October 2019 was 3.6%, continuing a fifty-year low, with a million more job openings than there are job seekers.

Coinciding with the low unemployment rates and labor shortages are measures taken by the administration to cut legal immigration to the U.S., including slashing annual refugee admissions, and imposing new requirements currently enjoined by federal court orders, that could result in half as many immediate family members of U.S. citizens and permanent residents being able to immigrate.  The administration’s new policies and procedures, if  implemented, would result in hundreds of thousands fewer immigrants arriving in the U.S. annually, and at least 500 fewer in Maine.

Given our nation’s low birthrates and aging population, immigration is critical for the U.S. and Maine to continue to have vibrant communities and a strong economy.   The administration’s actions impeding immigration ignore that reality.

ICYMI:  Bloomberg Businessweek devoted its November 4, 2019 issue to the “New Economy”, and examined how countries like Canada and Japan have adjusted their immigration systems to make up for their shrinking labor forces by admitting more immigrants. The article also looks at Colombia, as an example of a country dealing with refugees.

In Japan’s case, the focus is on guest workers, but with some having a path to stay permanently.   In Canada’s case, the government is streamlining skills-based immigration.  Though not mentioned in the article, Canada is also admitting more refugees, and continues to admit family-based immigrants.

Similar to Japan and Canada, the U.S. has a similar aging workforce and low fertility rates, but seems incapable of grappling with immigration reform in Congress.   The U.S. will be playing catch-up globally in the competition for talent if the inaction continues.

You can find the Bloomberg Businessweek article here.

November 5, 2019 may have been an off-year election with no national races on the ballot, but it nonetheless was a momentous day in Maine.  Across the state, first and second generation immigrants won seats on their local city councils and school boards.

• In Bangor, Angela Okafor, an immigrant from Nigeria, won a seat on the City Council, and Marwa Hassanien, whose parents immigrated from Egypt, won her race for School Committee.
• In Brewer, Soubanh Phanthey, originally from Thailand, gained a seat on the City Council.
• Hamden voted Tania Jean-Jacques, whose family immigrated from Haiti via Canada, onto the  RSU 22 School Board.
• In Lewiston, Safiya Khalid became the first Somali immigrant since Somalis started settling in Lewiston in 2001 to win a seat on the Lewiston City Council, with over 69% of the vote.
• In Portland, Pious Ali, an immigrant from Ghana, won an uncontested race for reelection to his at-large seat on the City Council, and Tae Chong, whose family immigrated to the U.S. from South Korea, won a 5 way race for the City Council’s District 3 seat.
• In Westbrook, Claude Rwanganje, originally from the Democratic Republic of Congo, who came to the U.S. and gained asylum, will now represent his district on the City Council.

These individuals have varying political affiliations and views, but they have one thing in common, a history of serving their communities in their work and as volunteers.

At MeBIC, we constantly sound the refrain that immigrants and their children not only help stem Maine’s depopulation and keep our economy robust, but that they also keep our communities vibrant.

These leaders who are stepping up to the call of public service in their local governments and school districts, make that message come alive.   MeBIC congratulates them for their hard work during their campaigns, and thanks them for their willingness to serve .

An October 2019 working paper finds that children of immigrants experience more upward economic mobility than children of U.S. citizens.   The findings hold true even for children of low income immigrants.

(W)e find that immigrants at the bottom of the income distribution from nearly every sending country, including those with a sizable negative earnings gap in the first generation, have higher rates of upward mobility than the children of the US-born. This finding stands in contrast to the view that immigrants of certain countries of origin are not be able to integrate into the US economy.

The report, by economists from Princeton, Stanford, and U.C.-Davis,  also finds that even though the countries from which immigrants arrive today differ from those of a century ago, the upward mobility of immigrant children remains consistent.

We find that, both historically and today, children of immigrants at the bottom of the income distribution have higher rates of upward mobility than children of the US-born and to a strikingly similar degree in each time period.

You can read the working paper here.

Nov. 3, 2019 UPDATE:

On November 2, 2019, the U.S. District Court in Portland, Oregon issued a Temporary Restraining Order blocking the Presidential Proclamation described further, below, from taking effect on November 3, 2019.

The TRO will be in place for 28 days, to allow time for a full hearing on whether the court should issue a preliminary injunction blocking implementation of the Presidential Proclamation while litigation challenging its legality is underway.

Oct. 31, 2019 UPDATE:

On October 30, 2019, the Department of State published a notice in the Federal Register, giving the public only one day to submit comments regarding their implementation of the Presidential Proclamation described below.

Also on October 30, 2019, a federal lawsuit challenging the legality of the Presidential Proclamation was filed, requesting an immediate injunction of the new policy.  The lead plaintiff is a U.S. citizen whose wife is scheduled for an immigrant visa interview on November 6, 2019, three days after the Presidential Proclamation is due to take effect.

On October 4, 2019, the White House issued a Presidential Proclamation requiring intending immigrants from abroad to prove that they either have the resources to pay for their own medical care, or that they will have unsubsidized health insurance within 30 days of entry into the U.S.    If they can prove neither, they will be unable to immigrate.  The new policy is supposed to take effect on November 3, 2019.

This Proclamation could result in a 65% drop in the issuance of immigrant visas, resulting in 375,000 fewer legal immigrants arriving in the U.S. annually.   Even though permanent residents are eligible to purchase insurance through the Affordable Care Act, including with subsidies if earning less than 400% of the annual poverty guidelines (an income of up to $103,000 for a family of four), access to subsidized insurance would not meet the health insurance requirement under the Proclamation.

While this policy in theory applies to all immigrants applying for immigrant visas while abroad, the impact will fall primarily on immediate family members of U.S. citizens and permanent residents, and on Diversity Lottery immigrants.  The vast majority of employment-based immigrants are already in the U.S. when they apply for permanent residency, and additionally, are typically in professional positions that include health insurance as a benefit.  As a result, the new policy is unlikely to affect them.

Perversely, the Proclamation would exclude children under 18, unless they are immigrating together with their parent.  So, for example, the child of a permanent resident could immigrate, but that child’s parent, the spouse of the permanent resident, would be barred from immigrating if their petitioning spouse  works in a job that does not provide health insurance, and cannot afford to purchase health insurance for the immigrating spouse except through the ACA subsidized insurance through the ACA.

This new policy will result in separated families, along with the related emotional and economic costs that prolonged separations entail.  The new policy will also result in dramatically fewer working age immigrants joining the U.S. workforce and economy, at a time of record low unemployment  nationwide and in Maine, and  when our labor supply is shrinking as our population ages.

The administration repeatedly states that it supports “legal immigration”, yet its actions indicate otherwise.   In the span of a week, the administration’s announcement of drastic cuts in refugee admissions together with this new Proclamation will result in at least a third fewer new immigrants coming to the U.S. in FY 2020, compared to typical annual numbers over the past two decades.   This flies in the face of centuries of immigration tradition, and ignores the economy’s need for new workers, consumers, and entrepreneurs.

It’s likely that this Proclamation will be the subject of federal lawsuits challenging its legality.

On October 28, 2019, the administration announced that as part of broader collaboration agreements between El Salvador and the United States, the U.S. has agreed to extend Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Salvadorans until January 4, 2021.  The timeframe for Salvadorans to apply to extend their TPS has not yet been announced.

Previously, the administration had terminated Salvadoran TPS, resulting in litigation and a federal court order maintaining Salvadoran TPS, which ended in September, through January 2, 2020 while the litigation is ongoing.

There are nearly 200,000 Salvadorans in the U.S. who have had TPS for more than 18 years, including many who live in Maine.  They have built lives here, have U.S. citizen children who have grown up here. and they are part of our communities, our workforce, and our economy.

While having another full year of TPS status is a relief for them, it is time for Congress to pass legislation offering Salvadorans a path to permanent residency.  The House has already done that, when it approved H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act.  The ball is now in the Senate’s court.  It is past time for the Senate to act.

The Administration has proposed a rule change that will cause asylum seekers to wait longer than they currently do to get their first work permits.   This would not only lengthen the time that asylum seekers have to rely on charity to survive, but will cause economic damage by delaying the entry of willing workers into the labor force.

Current regulations require asylum seekers to wait to apply for a work permit until 150 days after they file their asylum applications, but then mandate that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) decide the work permit applications within 30 days of receipt.   Because USCIS consistently took longer than the required 30 days, a lawsuit was filed and in December 2018, a federal court ordered USCIS to comply with the regulations.

The Administration is proposing to remove that 30 day adjudication time frame from the regulation, expressly stating that processing times will then revert back to what they were prior to the Court’s order, when USCIS  failed to meet that deadline 53% of the time.

The Administration admits it could add more  staff in order to comply with the current regulation, but doesn’t estimate what that would cost, and dismisses that approach as failing to provide an immediate solution to the problem due to on-boarding and training time.

The Administration does, however, estimate the cost to asylum seekers whose ability to work will be delayed due to this rule change, finding that  the estimated range of lost earnings to asylum seekers annually will range from $255 million to $774 million.

The proposed rule’s preamble  notes that in turn, this will result in an estimated $39 million to $118 million in lost federal payroll taxes annually.  The Administration doesn’t attempt to project the additional tax losses at the state and local levels.

The Administration fails to calculate, but acknowledges, that this rule change will also cost employers in lost productivity and profits by depriving them of a labor pool, also noting that with the nation’s current historically low unemployment rates, providing work permits meets an economic need.

The Administration states that increased volume and some cases requiring additional information mean that USCIS needs more than 30 days to process work permit applications.   Yet, that problem could be resolved by proposing that asylum seekers submit their asylum and work permit applications simultaneously.   Federal statutes state that an asylum seeker can’t get a work permit sooner than 180 days after applying for asylum, but are silent on when the work permit application can be submitted.  It is only by regulation that asylum seekers can’t file their work permit applications until their asylum cases have been pending for 150 days.  The administration could remove that 150 day wait from the regulation, giving USCIS 180 days to process the work permit application, which according to data in the proposed rule would be enough time to adjudicate over 96% of the work permit applications received.

Maine’s unemployment rate is at record lows, estimated at 2.9% in September 2019.  Asylum seekers are typically of working age, and play a critical role in shoring up Maine’s shrinking labor supply.  They already must wait six months to get their first work permit, which is an assault on their dignity, and a huge waste of human capital.  Neither they, nor the employers eager to hire them, should have to wait even longer.

Public comment on the proposed rule will be accepted through November 8, 2019.  MeBIC has submitted a comment strongly opposing this rule change.   Contact MeBIC if you’d like help to do the same.

UPDATE  (Oct. 15, 2019):

On October 11, 2019, in advance of the October 15, 2019 effective date of the  Public Charge Rule, discussed in the post below,  a federal district court in New York issued a nationwide injunction blocking the rule from taking effect while it is challenged in the courts.  As of October 15th, four other federal district courts in California, Illinois, Maryland, and Washington had also issued injunctions to block implementation of the rule.   (Maine is one of the state plaintiffs in the California case).  Also on October 11, 2019, to align with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)’s Public Charge Rule, the Department of State issued an interim final rule  applicable to individuals applying for visas at U.S. consulates abroad.  While the court injunctions apply only to DHS’s rule, on October 15th the State Department indicated that it will hold off on applying its new public charge rule temporarily.  Public comments on the Department of State’s rule will be accepted through Nov. 12, 2019, and it’s likely that it, too, will be subject to federal court challenge.

Regarding Refugee Resettlement in FY 2020, as discussed in this post, the administration announced it will cap refugee admissions at 18,000 for FY 2020 and newly require that states and localities specifically consent to accepting refugees for resettlement.  These changes may result in even fewer than 18,000 refugees being resettled, and represent an abdication of the U.S.’s historic role since 1980 as the world’s leader in offering permanent safe haven to refugees.

Additionally, as we explain here, a new health insurance requirement that immigrants from abroad either have the financial means to pay for their medical care, or have proof that they will be able to acquire unsubsidized (ie. not through the ACA) health insurance within 30 days after arrival in the U.S. is predicted to result in as many as 375,000 immigrants annually being denied their visas to immigrate to the U.S.  Immediate family immigrants will be most impacted by this new requirement.

Finally, an update to the unemployment numbers mentioned below:  at 3.5%, the nation’s unemployment rate in September 2019 is the lowest since December 1969, and Maine’s 2.9% unemployment rate in August 2019 represents its 44th consecutive month below 4%.   The vast majority of immigrants to Maine come through the family and refugee streams.  Given Maine’s aging population and labor supply shortages, these cuts to legal immigration could not come at a worse time.

ORIGINAL POST (Aug. 14, 2019)

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 of 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.

The State Department has announced that registration for the Diversity (DV) lottery for fiscal year 2021 will be open from noon (EST) on October 2, 2019 through noon (EST) on November 5, 2019.

The DV lottery allows foreign-born individuals, whether they are outside of or in the U.S., to apply for a chance to immigrate to the U.S.    A person who is selected next spring after registering this fall for the DV-2021 lottery will able to apply for permanent residency (the “green card”) at the start of FY 2021 on October 1, 2020.  S/he may be able to apply with USCIS, if s/he is already in the U.S. and is otherwise eligible, or else may apply with the State Department for an immigrant visa interview at the appropriate U.S. consulate abroad.   The person will undergo the usual medical exam and criminal and security background checks before being interviewed or approved to immigrate.

The lottery is pure luck.  But up to 50,000 people  gain residency each year because they happened to be lucky.

A person who is in the U.S. on a work permit, such as an asylum seeker, who entered the U.S. legally and has never violated her/his status, can register for the lottery and if selected, may be able to get her/his green card through the lottery.   Registering for the lottery doesn’t adversely affect a person’s current status or other applications already pending with USCIS.

Individuals in the U.S. who have been out of status should talk with an immigration lawyer before bothering to apply, since time out of status may make it impossible to get a green card, even if selected in the lottery.

Eligibility requirements for the DV-2021 lottery include:

• Not being from one of the ineligible countries (see list in the announcement);
• Having completed high/secondary school in the U.S. or abroad (a G.E.D. is not sufficient); or
• Having worked for at least two years of the previous five years in a skilled trade, which is one that takes at least two years to become qualified in it.

There is no age requirement, although people under 18 may not qualify if they haven’t yet met the education or skills requirement.

A new requirement this year is that applicants must have a valid, unexpired passport at the time of registering for the DV lottery.  In the past, applicants only needed to get a passport if they were selected in the lottery.  As a practical matter, this may make it impossible for many people to apply, whether they are already here in the U.S. or are abroad, because they may be unable to get a passport in time, or at all.

An individual may only submit ONE lottery application.  If more than one is submitted, the person will be disqualified.  However, spouses can include each other, giving them two chances to be selected (but each spouse must meet the eligibility requirements).  All children who are unmarried and under 21 must be included on the registration application in order to be allowed to immigrate if their parent is selected in the lottery.

Employers in Maine with employees currently working with work permits, such as asylum seekers, should encourage their employees to get additional information about eligibility to register for the lottery.  While it’s a long shot, many asylum seekers have won the lottery in the past and gained residency through it while their asylum cases remained stuck in processing backlogs.

Note that lottery registration is FREE.  Instructions and the application form is posted on the State Department’s website.  Those signing up for the lottery from inside the U.S. should avoid any website that asks for a fee to register, and also avoid people who are not lawyers or authorized by the Board of Immigration Appeals to provide immigration law assistance, who ask for money to “help” with a lottery application.  Unauthorized practice of law is illegal in most states, including in Maine.

MeBIC is available to come and talk with employees at Maine businesses and nonprofits to help them understand the lottery and whether it may or may not be worth it for them to register.  Contact MeBIC for more information.

The White House has stated it will set the refugee admissions ceiling in FY 2020 at 18,000, an historic low since passage of the Refugee Act of 1980, and  dramatic reduction from FY 2016 when nearly 85,000 refugees were resettled.   The official Presidential Determination has not been published at this writing.

But the White House also announced a new policy requiring consent from specific states and localities before any refugees will be resettled there.   In practical terms, this means that locally, not only the State of Maine, but also Portland, Lewiston, Augusta, and any other Maine community that wants to resettle refugees must put that in writing to the federal government.

The White House has directed the government to develop a procedure for obtaining consent within 90 days.  This virtually guarantees that no refugees will be admitted during the first quarter of FY2020 that begins on October 1, 2019.  Any delays in implementing the new process could effectively result in far fewer than 18,000 refugees being resettled next fiscal year, at a time when there are a record nearly 26 million refugees globally who cannot return to their countries.

In Maine, this reduction comes when our communities and workforce are aging and shrinking and unemployment is at record lows.  Refugees have been a steady source of new Mainers since 1980, but in recent years their numbers have plummeted.  In FY 2016, about 650 refugees were resettled in Maine.  In FY 2019, only 140 were.   The administration’s new refugee limits and policies betray the nation’s values, and are economically short-sighted as well.   Maine, and the U.S., needs refugees.

This fact sheet from the Pew Research Center highlights some key facts about refugee resettlement in the U.S. and changes to the program under the current administration, while reports describing refugee resettlement’s net economic benefits to the U.S. economy can be found here and in this more recent post from the Wharton School of Business.