On September 5, 2017, the day that the Trump Administration announced its rescission of DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program,  the George Hale and Rick Tyler show on Bangor-based WVOM radio interviewed MeBIC’s Beth Stickney about DACA and the reasons why DACA holders need a path to permanent residency in the U.S.

Beth Stickney appeared in a September 14, 2017 article in The Ellsworth American about the negative impact that the end of the DACA program will have on Maine’s labor force, including in Washington County.

On September 27, 2017, MeBIC’s Board Secretary Dana Connors, the CEO of the Maine State Chamber of Commerce, spoke to Maine Public radio about why 30 business, education and economic development leaders sent a letter to Maine’s Congressional delegation urging them to pass the Dream Act of 2017 for those with DACA.

Update:  On November 10, 2017, the Brunswick Times Record published an opinion piece urging passage of the Dream Act of 2017 co-authored by MeBIC’s director Beth Stickney and David Vail, Bowdoin College Professor Emeritus of Economics and chair of Coastal Enterprise, Inc.’s Public Policy Committee.   CEI is a MeBIC partner.

On November 6, 2017, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that it will end Nicaraguan Temporary Protected Status (TPS) on January 5, 2019, but it has not yet made a decision about terminating Honduran TPS and will therefore extend it for six months while it deliberates.

Congress created TPS to allow foreign-born individuals already in the U.S. when natural disasters strike or civil conflict erupts or escalates in their home countries to apply to stay and work legally in the U.S., until our government determines they can return. TPS is normally granted and extended in 12 or 18-month increments.

Nicaraguans and Hondurans with TPS have lived in the U.S. since at least December 1998, with more than half having lived here for over two decades.  Approximately 57,000 Hondurans nationwide have TPS, and another 3000 Nicaraguans do.   Maine has many Hondurans with TPS living and working in communities throughout the state.  Many have U.S. citizen children.

DHS Acting Secretary Elaine Duke urged Congress to pass legislation to allow the Nicaraguans who will be losing their TPS status, to remain in the U.S. permanently.

On October 26, 2017, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote a letter urging the Department of Homeland Security to extend Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians, Hondurans and Salvadorans, and to work with Congress to create a path to permanent status for these individuals.

Congress created TPS to allow foreign-born individuals already in the U.S. when natural disasters strike or civil conflict escalates in their home countries to apply to stay and work legally in the U.S., until our government determines they can return. TPS is normally granted and extended in 12 or 18-month increments.

Some countries received their TPS designations years ago, and their citizens have received multiple extensions of TPS because their countries could not reabsorb them without significant economic destabilization or due to ongoing wars. In early 2018, four of those countries’ TPS extensions will expire if not renewed by the Department of Homeland Security.   These include:

• Honduras: TPS has been in effect since 1999 and the current extension will expire January 5, 2018. Approximately 57,000 Hondurans have TPS.
• Nicaragua: Same as Honduras, except only about 3000 Nicaraguans have TPS.
• El Salvador: TPS has been in effect since 2001 and the current extension will expire March 9, 2018. Approximately 195,000 Salvadorans have TPS.
• Haiti: TPS has been in effect since 2010, and the current extension will expire January 22, 2018. Approximately 50,000 Haitians have TPS.

According to a July 2017 report by the Center for Migration Studies, over half of Salvadoran and Honduran TPS holders have lived in the U.S. for more than 20 years. A majority of Salvadoran, Honduran, and Haitian TPS holders are parents to a collective total of more than 273,000 U.S. citizen children. Well over 80% of these TPS recipients are in the workforce, surpassing the rate of 63% for the U.S. native-born population.  They are also our neighbors, our friends, our volunteers, and are integral members of our communities.

Ending TPS for Haitian, Honduran, and Salvadoran TPS holders will result in over 300,000 people exiting our labor force. As the U.S. Chamber of Commerce points out in its letter, nationwide, high numbers of TPS holders work in construction, food processing, hospitality, and home healthcare.

Maine has many TPS recipients, particularly from El Salvador and Honduras, who are indeed working in the sectors mentioned above, and who have a strong presence on Maine’s farms as well. Losing these individuals from our Maine communities and workforce will leave employers scrambling to find replacements in an already tight labor market, and will retard growth.

These individuals have been integral parts of our communities for nearly 20 years or more.  Their TPS status should be extended, and Congress should work to create a path for them to gain permanent residency.

The Trump Administration continues to make changes adversely affecting processing times and the nimbleness of the United States’ response to businesses’ needs for employees.

Extensions of nonimmigrant (temporary) work visas will be subject to re-adjudication. 

On October 23, 2017, USCIS reversed a policy in place since 2004 that allowed its officials to defer to prior eligibility decisions when adjudicating an employment-based nonimmigrant visa extension request filed by the same employer for the same employee where there were no material changes in the facts of the case. The new policy took effect immediately.

This change will affect all employers filing to extend their H-1B, L-1, or O-1 visa professional and managerial employees’ period of authorized stay.   It will mean that USCIS is essentially conducting new eligibility determinations for visa extension requests, even when the employer, the employee, the type and location of the job, and all other conditions are unchanged since the initial visa petition filed by the employer was scrutinized and approved by USCS.

At best, as a result of this about-face, employers are likely to experience extended delays in obtaining decisions, as well as increased incidence of requests by USCIS for additional evidence regarding visa extension petitions. At worst, the memorandum announcing the policy change will be seen as an invitation by USCIS officials to exercise their discretion to deny extension requests. This new policy will create uncertainty for both the employer and the employee about whether a valued staff person will be able to continue his/her work, in contrast to the prior policy that virtually assured all parties that the employment relationship could continue smoothly if no material conditions had changed in the interval between the initial petition and the extension request.

Why the urgent need for the Dream Act of 2017 (S. 1615, H.R. 3440)?

For the young adults who currently have DACA status , the U.S. is their home.  They have grown up here, have gone to school here, and many of them have no memories of the countries where they were born. A majority of them have U.S. citizen immediate family members, and are our neighbors, classmates, workers, and friends.  In every sense except their birth certificates, they are Americans.   Penalizing them for decisions their parents made for them is inhumane.

Just as important, our economy needs them.   They are educated, ambitious, integrated, English-speaking….. and are entering our workforce at the same time that we need workers to replace our retiring Baby Boom generation.  Nearly 92% of them are working and paying taxes, with over 45% of them doing so while simultaneously attending universities, and 17% of those are pursing graduate degrees.  Those who are not working typically are full time students.

There are several hundred DACA holders in Maine. They range from the full-time university student majoring in a STEM field who also has his own business employing several U.S. workers, to the woman working full-time in shipbuilding while going to college part-time, to the man who has lived in Maine for nearly 20 years, and supports his two U.S. citizen children through his job on a northern Maine farm. As the nation’s oldest state, with a shrinking labor pool as “baby boomers” retire, Maine cannot afford to lose the potential of these young adults.

About 800,000 young adults nationwide have DACA.   That’s 800,000 people who will no longer be eligible to work due to DACA’s termination.  That’s thousands of employers nationwide that will lose employees whom they’ve already invested in training, and who are part of their teams.  It’s future doctors, engineers, architects, teachers, nurses, etc. currently enrolled in universities, who won’t be able to finish their degrees.  It’s also consumers who will no longer have earnings to spend. Beginning March 6, 2018, each day, approximately 1400 DACA holders will lose their DACA status and their permission to work.

The economic costs if there is no fix to this problem are enormous. Those with DACA not only work, but they spend their earnings too, on tuition, consumer goods, and they pay taxes. A recent survey of over 3000 DACA holders found that after obtaining DACA, their average wages increased by 69%. Sixty-five percent of them bought their first cars, and nearly a quarter of DACA holders over age 25 bought their first homes. The U.S. will lose a projected $60 billion in tax revenues, including contributions to Social Security and Medicare, and will experience a $460.3 billion drop in the Gross Domestic Product over a decade if DACA holders lose their legal status. U.S. employers will spend an estimated $6.3 billion in turnover costs to replace their DACA employees.

Forcing DACA youth to leave the U.S. or back into the shadows would not just be cruel, it would be bad for our economy and for the communities of which they are vital members. The Dream Act of 2017, S. 1615, H.R. 3440, has been reintroduced with bipartisan support in Congress. It’s up to Congress to act quickly to pass a clean Dream Act, so that DACA/Dreamers can reach their full potential in the country that is their real home.

 

Interviews required for all employment-based immigrant applications, as of October 2, 2017  

Most noncitizens immigrating through employment are already in the U.S., usually working with professional nonimmigrant (temporary) visas.   Their process of gaining permanent residency typically involves two steps: the employer’s “I-140 petition” that includes evidence of its good faith (but ultimately unsuccessful) effort to find a qualified, available, and willing U.S. worker; and the employee’s application for “adjustment of status” from nonimmigrant to immigrant, contingent upon approval of the employer’s petition. The employee’s spouse and unmarried children under twenty-one can also file to “adjust” if they are in the U.S. with her/him.

For over twenty years, except in a small percentage of cases, “adjustment of status” interviews for employment-based immigrants have been waived. Instead, these applications have been approved once all background and security checks have been completed, based on the documentary evidence included with the I-140 petition and the adjustment application.

Following President Trump’s Executive Order 13780, mandating increased vetting of noncitizens planning to come or immigrate to the U.S., effective October 2, 2017, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) began requiring interviews of all employment-based adjustment of status applicants who filed their applications on or after March 6, 2017. Interviews will include spouses and children, although USCIS can waive the presence of children under age fourteen.

Instead of the I-140 petition and adjustment of status application both being adjudicated at one of USCIS’s Service Centers, the paperwork will be filed there, and later be transferred to the USCIS office nearest to the employee’s residence.  That office will interview the employee and decide whether or not to approve the adjustment of status application.  USCIS says that the local USCIS office should not re-adjudicate the I-140 petition, but will examine all the evidence submitted with it to determine its “credibility”.

This change means two things: immigrants through employment will now face delays because of the need for an in-person interview, and they will need to involve their immigration attorney to prepare for and attend the interview, increasing the cost of the process.  Fortunately, in Maine, the local USCIS office in Portland does not have exceedingly long backlogs for interviews.   Nonetheless, the interview requirement can be expected to add several months to the process.

 

On September 27, 2017, thirty members of Maine’s business, economic development, labor, and higher education sectors, including MeBIC and many MeBIC partners, sent a letter to Maine’s Congressional delegation urging them to support the Dream Act of 2017 (S. 1615, H.R. 3440). The Dream Act would provide a path to permanent status for young adults who came to the U.S. while still children, who will soon become undocumented following the Administration’s decision to rescind the DACA program effective March 5, 2018.

MeBIC helped spearhead this effort.  Learn more about the urgent need for Congress to pass the Dream Act or another durable solution for those with DACA, here.

On September 8, 2017,  representatives of several MeBIC partners met with Senator Susan Collins, to urge her to work for a permanent solution for the DACA  youth who will lose their legal status and work eligibility on March 8, 2018.

In attendance were Dana Connors, CEO of the Maine State Chamber of Commerce, Carla Dickstein, SVP for Research and Policy Development at Coastal Enterprises, Inc., Mark St. Germain, President of St. Germain Collins, David Barber, Senior Consultant at Barber Foods,   David McElhinny, President, and Cindy Caplice, Human Resources, of SIGCO, Inc., and  MeBIC’s Executive Director, Beth Stickney, together with a young man holding DACA status who will become deportable when DACA ends.

Attendees discussed Maine’s acute and worsening workforce shortage, and the importance of immigrants to Maine’s communities, labor supply, and economy.  The DACA holder, who is pursing a STEM degree in college, told of growing up in Maine since age four, and explained that he was in high school when he first learned that he had no legal status.  He described the doors that opened once he got DACA, allowing him to work, pay taxes, and pay his way through college.  He told Senator Collins about the business he started, where he employs local workers and pays payroll taxes.   He would have to close his business and lay off his employees, and could not afford to continue studying, if Congress fails to create a path to legal status for those who will soon lose their DACA status.   He urged Senator Collins to support the Dream Act of 2017.

The Senator was clearly moved by the young man’s story, and stated her unambiguous commitment to finding a solution so that he, and the nearly 800,000 other DACA holders like him, can stay and reach their full potential in the U.S.

On September 5, 2017, the Administration rescinded the DACA program, which offered legal protections and work permits to undocumented immigrants who have lived in the U.S since they were children. The government stopped accepting renewal applications on October 5, 2017. If Congress does not act to provide a path to legal status for them, by March 6, 2018, an estimated 1400 DACA holders per day will lose their work permits and revert to being undocumented. This includes several hundred DACA recipients in Maine. This is not only cruel, but will harm our economy, as explained below.

What is DACA?

DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood  Arrivals) was a program created by President Obama on June 15, 2012. It allowed undocumented immigrants who entered the U.S. before June 15, 2007 as children or youth under age 16, who have grown up and were attending or had completed high school or obtained their GED here, to apply for temporary status (following background checks and paying substantial fees) so that they could go on to higher education, jobs, or military service following high school.  These were individuals who would gain a path to permanent resident status under the DREAM Act, a bill repeatedly introduced in Congress since 2001, were it to pass.  (DACA recipients are often called DREAMers, as a result.)

The Executive Branch carries out the immigration laws, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that Branch’s “prosecutorial discretion” in deciding whom it will deport.  With an estimated 11 million undocumented people in the U.S., the Obama Administration exercised prosecutorial discretion in offering protection from removal on a case-by-case basis (via individual applications) to the undocumented youth who would be eligible for permanent legal status under the DREAM Act, were Congress to pass it.

About 800,000 DACA holders must now hope that Congress will pass the Dream Act of 2017 (S.1615, H.R. 3440) or another permanent solution, so that they are not forced out of the mainstream and into the shadows, or worse, deported from the country that is their only real home, and that needs their talents.

USCIS released a revised Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, on 7/17/2017. Among other changes, USCIS added the Consular Report of Birth Abroad (form FS-240) to the list of acceptable documents proving work eligibility.

The 11/14/16 version of the form may be used until 9/17/2017, but employers must use the newest version after that date.

• The Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act, S. 1720.

The administration announced its support for the RAISE Act, S. 1720.   Introduced by Senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue and backed by President Trump, this bill would slash the overall number of immigrants to the U.S., chiefly by gutting immediate family immigration.   It would immediately reduce the total number of immediate family immigrants allowed each year by more than 40% from current levels, and eliminate most categories of family members presently eligible (including children who have have already turned 18, and parents, married children, and siblings of U.S. citizens). It would also eliminate the Diversity Visa lottery, and cap the number of refugees allowed in each year at 50,000.

The bill would create a new “points” system for employment-based immigration. Individuals with English fluency, post-graduate degrees in STEM or professional fields, younger workers, and those with high paying job offers or independent wealth to invest in the U.S. would be given the highest priority, although special points would also favor Nobel Laureates and Olympic individual medalists or other world class athletes.  Under the proposed points system, total employment-based visas would be capped at 140,000 annually, which is fewer than the number granted for each of the three most recent fiscal years for which there is complete data.

While the bill’s sponsors state it will strengthen our nation’s economy, there is broad opposition to that view from economists, business leaders, academics and others, including members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.  A small sampling of the early reaction to the RAISE Act:

The Bipartisan Policy Center

The Cato Institute:  here and here

The Council on Foreign Relations

New American Economy

Susan Martin, former Executive Director of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform

Various economists quoted in this Eduardo Porter piece in the NYTimes

Many immigration related bills have been introduced in 2017 in the 115^th Congress. Most have little chance of passage or are not yet in play.  Of those that may take on life, just a few  are noted here.

• The Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act, S. 1720.

Introduced by Senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue and backed by President Trump, this bill would slash the overall number of immigrants to the U.S., chiefly by gutting immediate family immigration.   It would immediately reduce the total number of immediate family immigrants allowed each year by more than 40% from current levels, and eliminate most categories of family members presently eligible (including children who have have already turned 18, and parents, married children, and siblings of U.S. citizens). It would also eliminate the Diversity Visa lottery, and cap the number of refugees allowed in each year at 50,000.

The bill would create a new “points” system for employment-based immigration. Individuals with English fluency, post-graduate degrees in STEM or professional fields, younger workers, and those with high paying job offers or independent wealth to invest in the U.S. would be given the highest priority, apart from Nobel Laureates and Olympic individual medalists or other world class athletes, who would be granted special points. Under the proposed points system, total employment-based visas would be capped at 140,000 annually, which is fewer than the number granted for each of the three most recent fiscal years for which there is complete data.

While the bill’s sponsors state it will strengthen our nation’s economy, there is broad opposition to that view from economists, business leaders, academics and others, including members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.  A small sampling of the early reaction to the RAISE Act:

The Bipartisan Policy Center

The Cato Institute:  here and here

The Council on Foreign Relations

New American Economy

Susan Martin, former Executive Director of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform

Various economists quoted in this Eduardo Porter piece in the NYTimes

• The Dream Act of 2017, S. 1615, H.R. 3440
• Introduced in July with bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Dream Act of 2017 would allow immigrants who came to the U.S. while under age 18, who lived in the U.S. at least 4 years prior to the bill’s enactment, who completed high school or their G.E.D., or who have DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) status, and who meet certain other conditions (medical exam, background checks), to apply for conditional residency, valid for 8 years.  While conditional residents, if they meet various conditions including completing at least 2 years of honorable military service or at least two years of higher education, or performing substantial work for at least 3 years, they would be able to apply for permanent residency. The bill would also protect immigrant youth in elementary, middle or high school, until they are eligible to apply after getting their high school diploma or their GED.Estimates are that the Dream Act of 2017 would immediately benefit nearly 2 million undocumented immigrants, with an estimated 1.5 million more who would eventually qualify once they complete high school or get their GED.  With legal status, they can pursue more educational opportunities and better jobs, so that they can reach and contribute to their full potential in the U.S.The U.S. has already invested in these youth, and for many, this country is the only home they can remember.  With our shrinking labor pool as “Baby Boomers” retire, helping these “DREAMers” gain permanent residency  in the U.S. is not only the right thing to do, it’s economically smart for our country.
• The Agricultural Worker Program Act of 2017, S.1034, H.R. 2690

 This bill would allow farm workers who have performed at least 100 days of agricultural work in the U.S. in each of the two years preceding the bill’s enactment, and who meet other conditions, to apply for temporary residency (the “Blue Card”).   Both seasonal agricultural visa holders and undocumented farm workers would be eligible.   After working for a defined period in agriculture during three to five additional years, Blue Card holders who also meet other conditions could apply for permanent residency, and would no longer be tied to farm work.

The bill would help potentially millions of farm workers who have lived in the U.S. for many years without documentation to come out of the shadow economy and regularize their status.  They could then pay taxes (and would be required to prove that they have, prior to gaining residency), pursue educational goals, and improve their and their families’ lives.

 

While the Legislature’s fight over the budget and the brief State Government shutdown captured the headlines, MeBIC followed several bills affecting Maine’s immigrants and their employers.  Here’s a brief recap.

• LD 1492: An Act to Attract, Educate and Retain New Mainers to Strengthen the Workforce

SUMMARY:     This bill would increase funding for English as a Second Language classes offered by school districts’ adult education centers, in order to eliminate waiting lists for classes, and to expand the classes offered in communities experiencing an increase in immigrant residents.  It also would: provide funding for contextualized English classes combined with job training at worksites; fund expansion from Portland into Lewiston-Auburn of the New Mainers Resource Center, which helps professional level immigrants integrate; and would provide small planning grants to communities experiencing growth in their immigrant populations.

MeBIC’s POSITION:  SUPPORTED.  Several of MeBIC’s Board members were involved in crafting this bill. MeBIC lobbied for LD 1492 and testified in its favor, as did several of MeBIC’s Partner Organizations.

OUTCOME:   The bill emerged from Committee with strong bipartisan support. However, due to the contentious budget battle, the bill was carried over until 2018, to avoid falling victim to funding issues.

• LD 1307: An Act To Ensure Fair Employment Opportunity for Maine Citizens and Legal Residents

 SUMMARY:     In its initial iteration, this bill would have required all Maine employers to enroll in the federal E-Verify computer system to confirm employees’ legal eligibility to work, but also would have required E-Verify’s use in an unlawful, discriminatory, fashion.  MeBIC pointed out this enormous problem to the committee’s legal analyst, who concurred. The original version was subsequently withdrawn and replaced with language requiring all public employers in the state and all of their contractors or subcontractors to use E-Verify.

MeBIC’s POSITION: OPPOSED.  MeBIC actively lobbied against LD 1307. E-Verify is time consuming and costly to implement, particularly for small businesses without dedicated HR staff or those with large seasonal increases in employees (despite the fact that enrollment and use of the web platform is free).  E-Verify also returns a worrisome percentage of erroneous “tentative non-confirmations” of legal employment eligibility.  Efforts to mandate use of E-Verify by all employers nationally have consistently failed in Congress due to its flaws.   E-Verify in its current form should not be mandated in Maine.

OUTCOME:   LD 1307 was defeated.

• Biennial Budget: Retention of General Assistance Funds Availability for Immigrants Applying for Permanent Status in the U.S.
  

SUMMARY:     General Assistance (G.A.) provides safety net subsistence level support for those who have nowhere else to turn.  Since 2015, it has been available to noncitizens who are legally here and seeking permanent status in the U.S., such as asylum seekers, for a maximum of 24 months.  Asylum seekers cannot get authorization to work under federal law until their asylum applications have been in process with the U.S. government for at least 180 days, and they are ineligible for federal means-tested benefits.  G.A. helps asylum seekers, who are not sponsored by any agency, survive and remain in Maine while awaiting their work permits.  With Maine’s declining population, investing in supporting asylum seekers in the short term, so that they can be part of our workforce and our communities in the long term, is an investment in strengthening Maine’s economy.

MeBIC’s POSITION: Several individual businesses wanted to make the case at the State House that retaining limited G.A. eligibility for asylum seekers and others on the path to permanent immigration status is a smart investment in Maine’s economy.  MeBIC’s Director supported their efforts, and also provided talking points to several Republican and Democratic legislators who requested them, making the economic case for G.A.

OUTCOME:   G.A. eligibility for immigrants was retained in the approved biennium budget.

As noted by MeBIC previously , the 33,000 nationwide cap for summer seasonal H-2B worker visas was reached in March. This was two months earlier than the prior year, and shut many Maine employers in the hospitality sector out from getting the workers many have relied on for years to handle the surge in summer and “leaf-peeping” tourism.

In May, Congress included language in an appropriations bill that would have allowed the issuance of up to nearly 90,000 additional H-2B visas per year, as MeBIC discussed in this post.  On July 19, 2017, the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor issued a final rule implementing the new law, but authorized only an additional 15,000 H-2B visas for the current fiscal year ending on September 30, 2017.

Coupled with a new requirement imposed by Congress that employers attest that they will suffer irreparable, permanent, harm should they not get the temporary H-2B workers they need, among other requirements, DHS and DOL’s rule is too little, too late to help Maine’s summer seasonal non-agricultural employers this year.

On June 26, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the Federal Government’s appeal of the federal court decisions enjoining sections of the Administration’s March 6, 2017 Executive Order (E.O.). That E.O. suspended entry for an initial period of 90 days of citizens or nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, as well as for 120 days of refugees, and capped refugee admissions for the current fiscal year at 50,000.

The Supreme Court will hear the appeal in its next term that begins in October 2017.

The Supreme Court also narrowed the scope of the lower courts’ injunctions, allowing the government to implement the E.O. against persons from the six named countries or refugees who do not have “a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” The Supreme Court gave only brief guidance about how those relationships should be defined, creating much confusion. The E.O. took effect on June 29, 2017, and the government construed those exempted from the travel and refugee bans very restrictively.

On July 13, 2017, the Federal District Court of Hawai’i ruled that the government’s definition was too narrow, and expanded the classes of persons the government to whom could not apply the E.O.   That decision was then appealed as too broad, resulting in a Supreme Court clarification on July 19, 2017.  As a result of the various court rulings, the E.O cannot be enforced against people from the six countries or refugees who:

• are parents, parents-in-law, spouses, fiancé(e)s, children, adult sons or daughters, sons or daughters-in-law, whole or half-siblings, step-relatives by marriage, grandparents, grandchildren, brothers or sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons already in the U.S.;
• have a bona fide relationship with a U.S. entity that is “formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course”, including those with job offers from U.S. employers. The Supreme Court specifically gave additional examples such as students accepted to attend, or those coming to speak or lecture at,  U.S. universities.  Presumably people from the six countries who intend to attend meetings with a business with which they have a documented relationship, would be able to apply for a visa or entry.

Individuals from any of the six countries who have dual nationality may be exempted from the E.O. travel ban if they travel on their passport issued by the non-targeted country. The E.O. also does not apply to those who already have permanent residency or refugee or asylee status in the U.S., or who were issued visas prior to the June 26th Supreme Court decision.

As a practical matter, the U.S. consulates are denying visas to many people from the six countries who may well have gotten visas in prior years, regardless of the various court decisions. There is no appeal from a denial of a U.S. visa, though reconsideration may be requested.

As a result of the travel ban and the uncertainty surrounding U.S. visa policy under the current administration, many individuals are choosing not to pursue work or study opportunities in the U.S.   Eventually there may be measurable negative economic consequences from the new policies.