Ashwin Sharma quoted in the Times of India re: the President’s Immigration Suspension and the possible future impact to Nonimmigrant visas such as the H-1B
“Ashwin Sharma, Jacksonville-based immigration attorney, told TOI, “At present the proclamation has left untouched the vulnerable visas in the non-immigrant categories. However, section 6 of the proclamation is deeply concerning as it leaves the door open to a future attack on the H-1B and other work visas.”
Sharma hopes that the President has no further plans to attack the H-1B and other non-immigrant visas under the guise of ‘protecting the American worker’. He wondered whether the proclamation is a subtle and first test of the waters. According to him, US will need its skills gap filled by H-1B and other professional workers in the long recovery from the ravages of Covid-19.”
Attorney Sharma quoted again by the Times of India about the Presidential Proclamation Suspending Entry of Certain Immigrants (formerly known as the “Immigration Ban”)
“Ashwin Sharma, Florida based immigration attorney told TOI, “As per this proclamation, the categories most impacted would include green cards for parents and siblings of US citizens, and for spouses and children of green card holders.”
Sharma says, “The Presidents proclamation is illogical. It characterizes a 65-year-old parent of a US citizen as a greater threat to the American worker than the same US citizen’s 20-year-old son. The proclamation is also disingenuous in that in that it is attempting to rebrand the existing processing delays caused by Covid-19 as a targeted ‘suspension’ to shift public scrutiny away from the administration’s delays in addressing the pandemic, and onto its favourite scapegoat, immigrants.”
Attorney Ashwin Sharma Interviewed by BBC Radio (Hindi) on President Trump’s Proposed Plans to End Birthright Citizenship in the U.S.
Ashwin Sharma was interviewed by BBC Radio (Hindi) on President Trump’s recent announcement that he intends to end birthright citizenship in the USA through an Executive Order.
By way of background, President Trump had stated earlier this week that, “We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States.” However this is incorrect, as at least three dozen other countries, including Canada and Mexico, follow the principles of “Jus Soli”, Latin for “right of the soil”, as a near unconditional basis for citizenship.
Birthright Citizenship in the United States is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Thus, an Executive Order alone, even one with a magical signature, cannot effect the changes to Birthright Citizenship as proposed by the President.
- On April 18, 2017, President Trump signed a new Executive Order, “Buy American and Hire American.” In the “Hire American” portion of the order, Trump announced he was directing DOL, DOJ, DHS, and DOS to review the current laws governing the H-1B program and suggest changes to prioritize the most skilled and highest paid positions. The President also indicated he was directing federal agencies to review all visa programs and take prompt action to crack down on fraud and abuse in order to protect U.S. workers.
WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Trump signed his latest Executive Order “Buy American and Hire American.” The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) observed that while today’s announcement reflects the administration’s desire to move toward reforms to the H-1B program, there will be no immediate changes or impacts on H-1Bs. Simply put, it appears that the agencies are asked to review policies related to all visa programs and recommend changes to root out “fraud and abuse,” and to propose additional reforms so that H-1B visas are awarded to the most skilled or highest-paid applicants.
Reuters Exclusive: US Gov’t orders Embassies to identify Certain Population Groups for Extreme Vetting including Mandatory Social Media checks
Reuters recently reported on an exclusive story regarding four diplomatic cables (links below) transmitted by U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in the last two weeks that call for heightened screening and vetting of visa applicants, including asking applicants detailed questions about their backgrounds and making social media checks mandatory for those who have ever been present in territory controlled by the Islamic State.
Read the Diplomatic Cables (Via Reuters)
WASHINGTON, DC – The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) denounced President Trump’s rewritten Executive Order, which is again based on the false premise that barring Muslims and refugees from coming to America will make the country safer. The ban was revised in an effort to get around the court orders that blocked the Administration from implementing the original order after it had wrought havoc throughout U.S. airports and around the world. Under the rewritten order:
- The ban will be effective March 16, 2017.
- Refugees are banned for a 120-day period, an effective chokehold that snuffs out the US refugee program.
- The travel ban still impacts only individuals from predominantly Muslim countries (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen), and still targets people based on their religion and nationality, though Iraq has been removed from the list of banned countries.
- The ban does not apply to lawful permanent residents (green card holders) and dual nationals when traveling on a passport issued by a non-designated country. Those holding select other visas and statuses will not be affected, and waivers may be granted to others on a case-by-case basis.
William A. Stock, President of AILA noted, “Despite the administration’s assurances, this ban on refugees and nationals of these predominantly Muslim countries will not make America safer. Once again President Trump is elevating a xenophobic campaign promise over true national security protections and implementing a policy that national security professionals think is unnecessary and counterproductive. Further, refugees, other than those already approved and in transit, will remain locked out of the United States for at least 120 days, despite being extremely vulnerable and the most stringently vetted group of immigrants. Blocking thoroughly vetted families from seeking help does not befit our nation’s proud and long history of humanitarian protection and welcoming those fleeing persecution.”
Benjamin Johnson, AILA Executive Director stated, “Exempting lawful permanent residents (green card holders) and dual nationals will hopefully mean that these irrational policies will hurt fewer people, but the fact remains that this is bad policy, motivated by unfounded fear. Just like the last ban, this executive order will disrupt the lives of foreign nationals that live, work, and contribute to the U.S. and the citizen family members, community members, and businesses that depend on them. Many have already curtailed travel for scholarly research, to visit family abroad, attend a wedding, or see someone graduate because they are afraid they won’t be allowed to return. This new ban will hurt American families and businesses, and does not advance the promise of a better future for our nation.”
The American Immigration Lawyers Association is the national association of immigration lawyers established to promote justice, advocate for fair and reasonable immigration law and policy, advance the quality of immigration and nationality law and practice, and enhance the professional development of its members.
New State-by-State Interactive Shows How Much Federal Funding Sanctuary Cities Could Lose at the Hands of President Trump’s Administration
The American Immigration Lawyers Association partnered with the Center for American Progress and the National Immigration Law Center on a new interactive resource which answers the question of “How Much Funding for Sanctuary Jurisdictions Could Be at Risk?” by calculating the amount of funding in sanctuary jurisdictions in 32 states that could be targeted by President Trump’s January 25 executive order.
On March 6, 2017, the President signed a new executive order with the same title as the old Order, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” The new Order takes effect on March 16, 2017 and expressly revokes the January 27, 2017 Order.
The new Order prohibits entry into the U.S. by immigrants and visitors from six predominantly Muslim countries without requiring any individualized determination based on specific intelligence that the individuals are a security risk. The Order exempts certain categories of people, including lawful permanent residents and dual nationals traveling on a passport from a country that is not one of the six designated countries. The American Immigration Lawyers Association does not believe the new Order will withstand judicial scrutiny since the targeted countries are majority Muslim, and the Order fails to provide evidence that nationals of the six countries pose a threat to national security. Courts reviewing the first order also gave serious consideration to the discriminatory statements directed at Muslims made by the President and his surrogates.
In addition, the new Order suspends refugee resettlement to the United States for 120 days and drastically reduces the number of refugees that the US Refugee Assistance Program (USRAP) will resettle in fiscal year 2017 from 110,000 to 50,000. Syrian refugees are no longer indefinitely banned under the new order, though they are subject to the 120-day suspension of the refugee program. The new Order no longer gives preference to individuals facing religious persecution who practice minority religions in their country of nationality. Despite the minor changes made in the new Order, it will have devastating consequences for the USRAP. The new Order will not make us safer as a nation, and thousands of refugees who have been screened for resettlement will be trapped in dangerous conditions.
Practice Advisory on Changes to Expedited Removal due to President Trump’s Executive Order on Border Security and Immigration Enforcement
The National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, the American Immigration Council, and ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project provide a practice advisory on how expedited removal has changed since President Trump issued the Executive Order on border security and immigration enforcement. This Practice Advisory addresses the coming expansion of expedited removal, who likely will be impacted, and possible ways to challenge an expedited removal order.
Immigration Attorney Ashwin Sharma interviewed by WJXT News4Jax on President Trump’s new immigration executive order (Travel Ban Version 2.0) anticipated to be issued this week. The new order is expected be specifically tailored to address National Security issues and to overcome Constitutional challenges like those that affected the earlier executive order.
The new Executive Order will purportedly take effect 1-2 weeks after it is signed, and appears to continue to focus on the original seven Muslim-majority countries – Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan and Libya, but exempt green-card holders and dual citizens of the U.S. and any of those countries. The new order would apparently no longer specifically reject Syrian refugees when processing new visa applications. As well, DHS Sectretary Kelly indicates that if travellers are “in motion from some distant land”, at the time the Executive Order takes effect, they “will be allowed in”.
Harvard Law School Clinic releases report on effect of Trump’s executive orders on Asylum Seekers – urges Canada to accept Asylum Seekers rejected by U.S.
Harvard Law School’s Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program has released a report on the effects of President Trump’s executive orders on people seeking asylum protection in the United States under long-standing provisions of U.S. and international law, including refugee law and the Convention Against Torture.
The US federal appeals court today denied the US government’s emergency request to resume President Donald Trump’s travel ban which had been suspended by a federal judge on Friday.
The late night ruling means the travel ban will remain suspended until the full case has been heard.