Deportação em Massa: Consequências e Desafios.

Uma das promessas de campanha mais provocativas do presidente eleito Donald J. Trump de realizar um grande deportação em massa levanta diversas questões sobre suas implicacães práticas e sociais:

1. Impacto econômico: Muitos imigrantes indocumentados contribuem para a economia dos EUA, especialmente em setores como a agricultura, construção e serviços. Uma deportação em massa pode resultar em uma escassez de mão de obra, levando ao aumento dos custos para empresas e consumidores, além de impactor negativamente a produção e oferta de serviços.

2. Consequências sociais: A possibilidade de deportação pode gerar um clima de medo e incertaza nas communidades. Famílias podem ser separadas, e a coesão social pode ser prejudicada, resultando em tensões comunitárias e aumento da ansiedade entre of residents.

3. Ramificações legais: A implementação de tal política de deportação em massa provavelmente enfrentará uma série de desafios legais, com questões sobre direitos civis, devido processo (due process), direitos humanos e a legalidade das deportações em massa provavelmente dominariam os tribunais, impactando não apenas os diretamente afetados, mas também o cenário legal da imigração nos Estados Unidos e a sociedade como um todo.

TARIFAS E RELAÇÕES COMERCIAIS: REPERCUSSÕES ECONÔMICAS

As promessas do presidente eleito Donald J. Trump de impor tarifas massivas sobre os principais produtos da China e de outros adversários introduzem um novo nível de complexidade nas relações comerciais e poderá remodelar a economia dos EUA.

1. Aumento de Preços ao consumidor: A imposição de tarifas pode levar a um aumento nos preços dos produtos, que as empresas podem repassar aos consumidores. Isso pode impactor o custo de vida e reduzir o poder de compra das famílias americanas e afeta os orçamentos domésticos.

2. Tensões Comerciais: A imposição de tarifas pode resultar em retaliações por parte de outros países, criando um ambiente de comércio internacional mais hostil. Isso pode prejudicar as exportações americanas e interromper as cadeias de suprimentos globais, impactando as empresas americanas que dependem de importações e exportações.

3. Previsibilidade Econômica: A incerteza em torno das políticas comerciais pode afetar a confiança dos investimentos significantivos em um ambiente de incerteza regulatória e comercial. Embora o governo possa argumentar que as tarifas, o impacto econômico pode sufocar o crescimento. À medida que as relações comerciais se tornam mais contenciosas, o investimento estrangeiro pode diminuir e as empresas americanas podem enfrentar desafios nos mercados globais.

OLHANDO PARA O FUTURO: UMA NAÇÃO DIVIDIDA

Enquanto o presidente eleito Donald J. Trump se prepara para retomar a Casa Branca, os americanos enfrentam a perspectiva de uma divisão intensificada. Suas políticas podem evocar fortes respostas de vários segmentos da população, levando a protestos, defesa e mobilização política em ambos os lados do corredor.

CONCLUSÃO: UM FUTURO INCERTO.

À medida que Donald J. Trump se prepara para assumir o cargo de president novamente, as promessas feitas durante a sua campanha trazem à tona preocupaçðes reais sobre o future da política, da economia e da sociedade americana. A deportação em massa e as políticas tarifárias não apenas afetam os diretos dos individuos, mas também podem ter consequências de longo alcançe para a economia e a coesão social.

É vital que os americanos se mantenham informados e engajados em discussðes sobre essas questðes. Para aqueles que buscam orietação de como essas mudanças podem impactor seus direitos e suas vidas, a equipe do Escritório de Advocacia Norka M. Schell, LLC, https://www.thelawschell.com esta aqui para ajudar. Estamos comprometidos em fornecer informaçðes e apoio durante este período de transição e incerteza.

UNDERSTANDING PHYSICAL CUSTODY AND DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY

Physical custody refers to where a child resides and who is responsible for their day-to-day care. In contrast, decision-making authority pertains to who has the power to make significant decisions regarding a child’s upbring, including education, healthcare, and religious upbring. In New York, New York Family Court or a New York Superior Court may award physical custody to one parent while dividing the “SPHERE OR ZONE OF DECISION-MAKING” between both parents.

This arrangement can be beneficial in situations where one parent may be better suitable to provide a stable home environment, while the other parent can still play an active role in important decisions affecting the child’s life. Such approach aims to foster cooperation between parents and ensure that children benefit from the environment of both parents, even if they do not live together.

THE IMPACT OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ON CUSTODY DECISONS

While the flexibility in custody arrangements offers advantages, certain factors can significantly influence the court’s decisions. One of the most critical considerations is the presence of domestic violence. Courts are mandated to evaluate the impact of domestic violence on custody arrangements, as it poses a substantial risk to the safety and well-being of both the child and the victimized parents.

In cases where there is evidence of domestic violence, courts my determine that joint custody or any form of share decision-making is inappropriate. The rationale behind this is clear: The safety of the children and the custodial parent must take precedence. The existence of domestic violence can lead the court to favor sole custody for the non-abusive parent, limiting the decision-making authority of the abusive parent, if any is granted at all.

TAILORING CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT TO INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES

The New York Family legal system emphasizes that custody decisions are not one-size-fits-all, they must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case. Factors such as the nature of the relationship between the parents, their ability to communicate and cooperate, and the presence of any risk factors, such as domestic violence, are all taken into account.

In practice, this means that in scenarios where joint custody is deemed inappropriate due to the dynamics of the relationship or the safety concerns, it may still be possible to grant the non-custodial parent some decision-making authority. This approach acknowledges the importance of both parents in the child’s life while prioritizing the child’s safety and well-being.

CONCLUSION

The evolving landscape of the New York Family Custody Law reflects a commitment to prioritizing children’s Best Interests while also recognizing the complexities of family dynamics. The ability to award physical custody to one parent while dividing decision-making authority allows for greater flexibility and responsiveness to individual circumstances. However, the critical issue of domestic violence serves as a potent reminder that the NY Court’s primary concern must always be the safety and welfare of the child. As such, each custody case must be carefully evaluated, ensuring that the arrangements support the child’s healthy development and emotional security.

Each agency involved in the task force is committed to key actions aimed at improving the safety and security of all workers under the H-2B program and ensuring American workers are not disadvantaged when employers use the visa program. These actions include better protecting workers engaged in labor disputes, addressing exploitation during recruitment, sharing resources with workers to inform them of their rights, enhancing data sharing and participating in a new working group dedicated to H-2 workers’ rights.

The announcement is part of the Biden-Harris administration’s whole-of-government approach to ensuring our most vulnerable workers know their rights, are protected from abuse at the hands of their employers and can advocate for themselves at work.

“The H-2B program has been plagued by worker exploitation for too long,” said Acting Secretary of Labor Julie Su. “The Biden-Harris administration is committed to protecting H2-B workers from abuse and with this report, we’re taking a whole-of-government approach to protecting these vulnerable workers, which will also help ensure they are not used to undercut labor standards for domestic workers. We look forward to working with our sister agencies across the federal government to implement these recommendations and work towards better protecting every worker in America.”

The White House Taskforce report announces more than a dozen action items to be taken across the federal government to advance protections for H-2B and, in select cases, H-2A workers. Partnering with the White House, Department of Homeland Security, Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development, the Department of Labor will:

1. Reduce workers’ vulnerability to exploitation from labor recruiters and employers by using enhanced information collection from other agencies, making it easier to prevent and enforce against exploitation by recruiters.
2. Empower workers by identifying and developing resources designed to provide workers with information about their rights under H-2 programs and disseminating information widely, including through MigrantWorker.gov and through additional task force agency channels.
3. Leverage existing data to increase transparency and reduce the vulnerability of H-2 workers through interagency data sharing, which will improve outreach and streamline responses to labor law violations.
4. Participate in a new interagency H-2 Worker Protection Working Group to guide the implementation of deliverables described in the task force report.
Read the interagency report and learn more about the H-2B Worker Protection Taskforce.

Agency Employment and Training Administration
Date October 19, 2023
Release Number 23-2256-NAT

Attempting to procure or procuring immigration benefits through a sham marriage can lead to inadmissibility and/or deportation, depending on the alien’s situation.

In the case of Salas-Velazquez, the Petitioner who was a native and citizen of Mexico entered the United States as a visitor for pleasure. He purported to marry a citizen of the United States, and, on the basis of that alleged marriage, filed a petition to adjust his status to that of a permanent resident alien. That petition was denied in 1989 on the ground that the marriage was fraudulent, entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws. Almost two years later, in 1991, the Immigration and Naturalization Service served petitioner with an order to show cause, charging him with deportability.

A hearing was held before an immigration judge, during which petitioner made a motion for adjustment of status based on a second marriage, also to a United States citizen. There was no dispute as to the genuineness of the second marriage. The immigration judge denied this motion. Later, the judge found that petitioner’s first marriage was fraudulent, that petitioner and his first wife never lived together, and that petitioner contracted the marriage for the purpose of immigrating to the United States. On the basis of this evidence, the judge sustained the charges of deportability. Salas-Velazquez v. INS. 34 F. 3d 705 – Court of Appeals. 8th Circuit 1994.

Beside of the severity immigration consequences, a person who enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the INA can be prosecuted and if convicted, faces term of imprisonment for up to five years, a fine of up to $250,000.00, or both imprisonment and a fine. See 8 U.S.C. § 1325(c).

Most of the officials appointed by President Joe Biden to work on immigration have resigned in frustration, according to a bombshell report from The New York Times in April. “The White House has been divided by furious debates over how – and whether – to proceed in the face of a surge of migrants crossing the southwest border,” the report said.

Some wanted more openness to immigrants of all kinds. Others wanted a coherent set of rules to be applied to the millions of people at the border. And some others wanted a compromise with Republicans to create a new merit-based, green-card system. They all got nothing.

A new report from the Department of Homeland Security for August confirmed over 2 million border apprehensions and expulsions this year so far. Previously, the United States only experienced more than 1 1/2 million apprehensions a few times in its history: during the late 1990s and then in 2021. At the current pace, that record could be doubled by the end of this year. And next year, if no policies change, it could double again…

Open border chaos increases human trafficking and drug trafficking. It turns what should be a foreign policy strength into a national security weakness.

When we ponder what Biden should do to address the immigration mess at the border, the honest answer is: something, anything. Because the status quo of playing politics while seemingly ignoring policy is not only politically divisive, but it’s also missing a golden opportunity.

Biden should take advantage of his moment in history to boldly reform American refugee policy. He could, at the stroke of a pen, redefine how many refugees are allowed into the United States by taking advantage of the distinction our laws make between those granted temporary protection and those awarded permanent residency.

Editor’s Note: Tim Kane is the president of the American Lyceum and a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution. His most recent book is “The Immigrant Superpower.” The views expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion on CNN.https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/05/opinions/immigration-policy-biden-administration-kane/index.html

At this time, this ruling does not affect current grants of DACA and related Employment Authorization Documents. Consistent with the court’s order [PDF] (PDF) and the ongoing partial stay, we will continue to accept and process renewal DACA requests, accompanying requests for employment authorization, and applications for advance parole for current DACA recipients, and will continue to accept but not process initial DACA requests.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) today announced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) final rule, which has been posted for public inspection on the Federal Register’s website. The final rule generally codifies existing policies with limited amendments to preserve and fortify DACA. The final rule is effective Oct. 31, 2022.

As part of the Biden-Harris Administration’s ongoing work to build a fair, orderly, and secure immigration system, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced joint actions with Mexico to reduce the number of people arriving at our Southwest border and create a more orderly and safe process for people fleeing the humanitarian and economic crisis in Venezuela.

The United States and Mexico intend to address the most acute irregular migration and help ease pressure on the cities and states receiving these individuals.

Effective immediately, Venezuelans who enter the United States between ports of entry, without authorization, will be returned to Mexico. At the same time, the United States and Mexico are reinforcing their coordinated enforcement operations to target human smuggling organizations and bring them to justice. That campaign will include new migration checkpoints, additional resources and personnel, joint targeting of human smuggling organizations, and expanded information sharing related to transit nodes, hotels, stash houses, and staging locations. The United States is also planning to offer additional security assistance to support regional partners to address the migration challenges in the Darién Gap.

To reduce the irregular migration of Venezuelans also includes a new process to lawfully and safely bring up to 24,000 qualifying Venezuelans into the United States. The United States will not implement this process without Mexico keeping in place its independent but parallel effort to accept the return of Venezuelan nationals who bypass this process and attempt to enter irregularly.

“These actions make clear that there is a lawful and orderly way for Venezuelans to enter the United States, and lawful entry is the only way,” said Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas. “Those who attempt to cross the southern border of the United States illegally will be returned to Mexico and will be ineligible for this process in the future. Those who follow the lawful process will have the opportunity to travel safely to the United States and become eligible to work here.” https://www.dhs.gov/news/2022/10/12/dhs-announces-new-migration-enforcement-process-venezuelans

Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 241 (a)(5) states, “if the Attorney General finds that an alien has reentered the United States illegally after having been removed or having departed voluntarily, under an order of removal, the prior order of removal is reinstated from its original date and is not subject to being reopened or reviewed, the alien is not eligible and may not apply for any relief under this chapter, and the alien shall be removed under the prior order at any time after the reentry.”

Reinstatement of removal is applied to noncitizens who reenter the United States illegally after having been removed under an order of deportation and makes such individuals ineligible for all forms of discretionary relief, including adjustment of status, under the INA. It does not apply to noncitizens who were ordered deported or excluded but failed to comply with the order.

For more information about reinstatement of removal, call the Law Offices of Norka M. Schell, LLC at 212-258-0713.